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 .
Priority
Current application, US Application No. 18/437,257 filed on 02/09/2024, claims foreign priority to JP 2023-037008 filed on 03/09/2023.
Examiner acknowledges that the certified copy of foreign priority document has been received. However, the certified English translation copy of the original foreign document, which is not written in English, has not been received. There is no requirement to submit certified English translation copy at this stage according to 37 CFR 1.55(g)(3). However, should the need of certified English translated copy arise according to the cases mentioned in 37 CFR 1.55(g)(3), submission may be requested in the future.
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to the application filed on 02/09/2024. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. As per claim 1, the limitations “calculating a first cumulative altitude from the acquired atmospheric pressure data, calculating a second cumulative altitude from the acquired atmospheric pressure data” are ambiguous because it is not clear whether and why cumulative altitude calculations are repeated twice in a same manner. Furthermore, it is not clear whether the calculation is performed in parallel or serially. For the sake of examination, the limitations is interpreted as “calculating a first cumulative altitude from the acquired atmospheric pressure data by smoothing the atmospheric pressure data over time with a predetermined data amplitude (or magnitude) including a small noise level, calculating a second cumulative altitude from the acquired atmospheric pressure data by smoothing the atmospheric pressure data over time with a predetermined data amplitude (or magnitude) including a large noise level in parallel with the first cumulative altitude calculation” in view of specification (see specification – smooths the acquired atmospheric pressure value with an intensity corresponding to an amount of noise included in the changes over time of the atmospheric pressure value [0015], a first calculator 120 calculates a cumulative altitude from the atmospheric pressure data smoothed with the small intensity, a second calculator 130 … smoothed with the large intensity [0017, Fig, 3]).
The limitation “determining, from the acquired atmospheric pressure data, whether a current state is a first state or a second state” is ambiguous because it is not clear how to distinguish two different states, wherein the sates are not defined either, using the identical same acquired atmospheric pressure data. For the sake of examination, the limitation is interpreted as “determining whether a current state is a first state or a second state by the amount of predetermined pressure amplitude reference data that are used for smoothing” in view the specification (see specification - the amount of noise included in the changes over time of the atmospheric pressure value is small, great, noise amount … predetermined reference [0022]).
As per claim 13, the limitations “calculating a first cumulative altitude from the acquired atmospheric pressure data; calculating a second cumulative altitude from the acquired atmospheric pressure data; determining, from the acquired atmospheric pressure data, whether a current state is a first state or a second state” are ambiguous because of the reasons explained in claim 1 above.
As per claim 17, the limitations “a calculation of the first cumulative altitude form the acquired atmospheric pressure data, a calculation of a second cumulative altitude from the acquired atmospheric pressure data, a determination, from the acquired atmospheric pressure data, whether a current state is a first state or a second state” are ambiguous because of the reasons explained in claim 1 above.
As per claims 2, 14 and 18, the phrases “a first intensity” and “a second intensity” are ambiguous because the terminology “intensity” for the atmospheric data does not sound natural for the acquired atmospheric pressure data” and appears to mean “a first amplitude of the acquired atmospheric pressure data” and “a second \ amplitude of the acquired atmospheric pressure data”.
As per claims 2-12, 14-16 and 18-20, claims are also rejected because base claims 1, 13 and 17 are rejected.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to nonstatutory subject matter. 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.
Specifically, representative claim 1 recites:
“A cumulative altitude calculation device, (1.A) comprising:
an atmospheric pressure sensor; (1.B.1)
a memory; (1.B.2)
and one or more processors, wherein the one or more processors executes a following processing in accordance with instructions stored in the memory: (1.B.3)
acquiring atmospheric pressure data from the atmospheric pressure sensor, (1.C)
calculating a first cumulative altitude from the acquired atmospheric pressure data, (1.D.1)
calculating a second cumulative altitude from the acquired atmospheric pressure data, (1.D.2)
determining, from the acquired atmospheric pressure data, whether a current state is a first state or a second state, (1.D.3) and
deriving, in accordance with the determined current state and based on the first cumulative altitude and the second cumulative altitude, a cumulative altitude. (1.D.4)”.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (Machine - Device).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exception. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation, that covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations), and mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion).
For example, highlighted limitations/steps (1.D.1)– (1.D.4) are treated by the Examiner as belonging to Mathematical Concept grouping or Mental Process grouping as the limitations include Mathematical Calculations/Algorithms, or show Mathematical Relationship , or include Mental evaluations/judgements.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The above claims comprise the following additional elements: (Side Note: duplicated elements are not repeated)
In Claim 1: “A cumulative altitude calculation device”, “an atmospheric pressure sensor”, “a memory; and one or more processors, wherein the one or more processors executes a following processing in accordance with instructions stored in the memory”, and “acquiring atmospheric pressure data from the atmospheric pressure sensor”;
In Claim 13: “A cumulative altitude calculation method”;
In Claim 17: “A non-transitory computer readable recording medium, storing a program executable by one or more processors …, the program causing the one or more processors to perform”;
As per claim 1, the additional element in the preamble “A cumulative altitude calculation device” is not a meaningful limitation because the preamble simply links the device with an abstract idea, i.e. cumulative altitude calculation. The limitation/element “an atmospheric pressure sensor” represents a standard sensor in the art and it is not particular. The limitations/elements “a memory; and one or more processors, wherein the one or more processors executes a following processing in accordance with instructions stored in the memory” represent components of a general computer or computing device and they are not particular in the art. The limitation/step “acquiring atmospheric pressure data from the atmospheric pressure sensor” represents a standard data collection step in the art and only adds insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception.
As per claim 13, the additional element in the preamble “A cumulative altitude calculation method” is not a meaningful limitation because the preamble simply links the method with an abstract idea, i.e. cumulative altitude calculation.
As per claim 17, the additional element in the preamble “A non-transitory computer readable recording medium, storing a program executable by one or more processors” and “the program causing the one or more processors to perform” is not a meaningful limitation because the preamble simply links the medium with an abstract idea, i.e. cumulative altitude calculation. The elements “a non-transitory computer readable medium”, “a program”, and “one or more processors” represent components of a general computer or computing device and they are not particular in the art.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claim elements as a whole do not reflect an improvement to the computer technology or other technology or technical field, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. No particular machine or real-world transformation are claimed. Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
Under Step 2B analysis, the above claims fail to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as shown in the prior art of record.
The limitations/elements listed as additional elements above are well understood, routine and conventional steps/elements in the art according to the prior art of record. (See Vlak, Hitt, Tsuji, Zhu and others in the list of prior art cited below)
Claims 1-20, therefore, are not patent 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vlakancic (US 4694694 A), hereinafter ‘Vlack’ in view of Hitt (US 4507962 A) best understood by the examiner.
As per claim 1, Vlack discloses
A cumulative altitude calculation device, (altimeter device [abs, col 1 line 5-24, col 2 line 3-18, claim 1]) comprising:
an atmospheric pressure sensor; (pressure sensor [abs, col 1 line 5-24], pressure transducer [col 2 line 3-18])
a memory; (memory [col 5 line 24-53, Fig. 5])
and one or more processors, wherein the one or more processors executes a following processing in accordance with instructions stored in the memory: (microprocessor [col 4 line 41-col 5 line 2, Fig, 1 and 7, claims 1 and 3])
acquiring atmospheric pressure data from the atmospheric pressure sensor,(measure … altitude [col 5 line 32-53, Fig. 5])
calculating a first cumulative altitude from the acquired atmospheric pressure data, (calculate altitude change, add the amount to … total [col 5 line 38-66, Fig. 5])
calculating a second cumulative altitude from the acquired atmospheric pressure data, (add … to … total [col 5 line 54-66, Fig, 5])
determining, from the acquired atmospheric pressure data, whether a current state is a first state or a second state, (decision and function blocks [col 6 line 1-8])
However, Vlack is silent regarding smoothing (or filtering) the acquired pressure data using a predetermined pressure reference data including a noise level as examiner interpreted and determining which state to take based on amounts of the predetermined pressure reference data to calculate a desired accumulated altimeter.
Hitt discloses filtering barometric pressure data based on the detected noise amount (barometric altimeter [abs], altimeter [claim 1], filtering step comprises the steps of calculating a gain term in response to the amount of noise detected in said pressure-representative digital signal, and updating a pressure representative quantity by arithmetically combining it with the product of said gain term and the difference between a previous value of said pressure representative quantity and the current value of said pressure-representative signal [claim 13]).
Hitt is in the same altimeter device art as Vlack.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention is filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of Vlack in view of Hitt to determine, from the acquired atmospheric pressure data, whether a current state is a first state or a second state, and derive, in accordance with the determined current state and based on the first cumulative altitude and the second cumulative altitude, a cumulative altitude by smoothing the acquired atmospheric pressure data using a desired level with a rationale to develop an accurate digital representation of the altitude as the function of a signal derived from the pressure transducer (see Hitt – accurate digital representation of the altitude [col 1 line 6-44]).
As per claims 2-20, claims are also rejected because the base and representative claim 1 is rejected.
Notes with regard to Prior Art
The prior arts made of record are provided as additional references relevant to the current claims.
Tsuji (US 20020032539 A1) discloses a portable altimeter provided with a movement determining unit for determining whether or not the altimeter is at a standstill or moving by comparing an amount of change in altitude with a prescribed standstill threshold value and movement threshold value ([abs])
Kotaki (US 10036637 B2) discloses an electronic device and an information notification method in which meaningful information regarding remaining journey ‘journey from a current point to a target point’ of a route including ups and downs can be notified to a user (information regarding remaining journey [col 1 line 39-45]).
Zhu (Zhu, Wenjie, and et al. "High-precision barometric altitude measurement method and technology." In 2013 IEEE International Conference on Information and Automation (ICIA), pp. 430-435. IEEE, 2013) discloses a high-precision barometric altitude measurement method and technology which compensate temperature drift with digital filtering its bias, lags and random noise ([abs, pg. 432 left col par. 2, pg. 434 let col par. 1, Par. 1]).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS KAY, whose telephone number is (408) 918-7569. The examiner can normally be reached on M, Th & F 8-5, T 2-7, and W 8-1.
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 M Vazquez can be reached on 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 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/DOUGLAS KAY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights