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 .
In the response to this office action, the Examiner respectfully requests that support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line numbers in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the Examiner in prosecuting this application.
Status of claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 1-7, 10-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding independent claim 1, the claim recites “calculate a mapping between the first orientation sensor axes and the second orientation sensor axes according to a difference between the first orientation signal and the second orientation signal, calibrate the first orientation axes according to a midpoint of the mapping and calibrate the second orientation axes according to an inverse of the midpoint of the mapping”. The above recitations can be a mental process using mathematical concepts/relationships (e.g., calculating a mapping between axes from two orientation signals, and then applying mathematical operations (midpoint and inverse of midpoint) to calibrate axes). Under the 2019 PEG, mathematical concepts and mental processes are abstract ideas.
That is, other than reciting “by a controller”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind using mathematical concepts/relationships but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes or mathematical concepts/relationships” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The controller is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of executing the mathematical mapping and calibration) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements such as “a pair of earphones, each housing an orientation sensor that outputs an orientation signal relative to sensor axes”. The above additional elements are insignificant extra-solution activities such as data gathering (e.g., collecting orientation signals from the first and second orientation sensors).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 10 and 17 recite similar limitations as that of independent claim 1 and is not patent eligible for the similar reasons as that of claim 1 since it also fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2-7, 11-15 and 18-20 which directly or indirectly depend on claims 1 and 17 respectively are not patent eligible for the similar reasons as that of claims 1 and 17 since they also fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 and 16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the claim objections set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument that the amended claims are in condition for allowance is not persuasive because of the new ground rejections set forth above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Supervisory Patent Examiner VIVIAN CHIN whose telephone number is (571)272-7848. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9am--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.
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.
/VIVIAN C CHIN/
Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2695