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. Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. 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. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because “A program for causing a computer to function as:” is directed to a program per se. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1-4, 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Faragher et al. (WO 2020/074921 A1) . With regards to Claims 1, 19 and 20, Faragher teaches a n information processing apparatus comprising: a calculation unit that calculates information to be a learning label on a basis of a sensor value including an angular velocity and an acceleration detected by a sensor unit (Page 5, Lines 10-35) ; a learning unit that learns an inference parameter for inferring at least one of a posture, a speed, or a position of the sensor unit on a basis of the information to be the learning label calculated by the calculation unit and the sensor value (Page 2, Line 26 – Page 4, Line 7, “training data” ; and a learning label supply unit that supplies, to the learning unit, information to be the learning label with higher accuracy than predetermined accuracy among the information to be the learning label calculated by the calculation unit (Page 18, Lines 1-10 and 24-31, “neural network”) , wherein the learning unit learns the inference parameter for inferring at least one of the posture, the speed, or the position of the sensor unit on a basis of the information to be the learning label with higher accuracy than the predetermined accuracy supplied from the learning label supply unit and the sensor value (Page 18, Lines 24-31, Page 19, Lines 19-31) . With regards to Claim 2, Faragher teaches wherein the calculation unit calculates the information to be the learning label by integrating the sensor value, and in a case where an elapsed time from start of integration of the sensor value is within a predetermined time, the learning label supply unit supplies the information to be the learning label calculated by the calculation unit to the learning unit as the information to be the learning label with higher accuracy than the predetermined accuracy ( Figure 3, Page 18, Lines 24-31, “more reliable”) . With regards to Claim 3, Faragher teaches wherein the calculation unit includes: a speed calculation unit that calculates a speed of the sensor unit by integrating the acceleration; and a position calculation unit that calculates a position of the sensor unit by integrating the speed (Page 23, Lines 17-22) , and the learning label supply unit is configured to: in a case where an elapsed time from start of integration of the acceleration by the speed calculation unit is within a predetermined time, supply information of the speed calculated by the speed calculation unit to the learning unit as the information to be the learning label with higher accuracy than the predetermined accuracy; and in a case where an elapsed time from start of integration of the speed by the position calculation unit is within a predetermined time (Figures 7-11, Page 22, Line 16 – Page 23, Line 15) , supply information of the position calculated by the position calculation unit to the learning unit as the information to be the learning label with higher accuracy than the predetermined accuracy (Page 27, Lines 5-16) . With regards to Claim 4, Faragher teaches wherein, when the sensor unit is stationary, the learning label supply unit resets the information of the speed calculated by the speed calculation unit to 0, and resets the elapsed time from the start of the integration of the acceleration by the speed calculation unit to 0. (Figures 7-11, Page 26, Lines 4-15). With regards to Claim 11, Faragher teaches further comprising: a learning recording unit that stores the inference parameter for each of a plurality of preset motion patterns; and a motion pattern search unit that searches for an inference parameter of an unregistered motion pattern among the inference parameter stored in the learning recording unit, wherein, when causing the learning unit to learn the inference parameter of the unregistered motion pattern, the motion pattern search unit presents information prompting an operation corresponding to the unregistered motion pattern to a user equipped with the sensor unit (Page 25, Lines 19-31, “checks for erronerous data points”) . With regards to Claim 12, Faragher teaches wherein the motion pattern search unit presents, as the operation corresponding to the unregistered motion pattern, information prompting the user to perform a motion of taking a predetermined pose, a motion of raising an arm, a motion of raising a foot, a motion of kicking a ball, or a motion of hitting a ball with a racket (Page 25, Lines 19-31) . With regards to Claim 13, Faragher teaches wherein the learning label supply unit further includes a buffering unit that buffers the sensor value for a predetermined time, and supplies, to the learning unit, information to be a current learning label with higher accuracy than the predetermined accuracy among the information to be the learning label calculated by the calculation unit and the sensor value in a past for a predetermined time buffered in the buffering unit, and the learning unit learns the inference parameter for inferring at least one of the posture, the speed, or the position of the sensor unit in a future for a predetermined time on a basis of the information to be the current learning label with higher accuracy than the predetermined accuracy supplied from the learning label supply unit and the sensor value in the past for the predetermined time (Page 27, Line 5 – Page 28, Line 30) . With regards to Claim 14, Faragher teaches further comprising an inference device that infers at least one of the posture, the speed, or the position of the sensor unit on a basis of the sensor value including the angular velocity and the acceleration detected by the sensor unit by using the inference parameter learned by the learning unit (Page 7, Lines 19-26). With regards to Claim 15, Faragher teaches wherein the calculation unit calculates the information to be the learning label in a global coordinate system on a basis of the sensor value in a sensor coordinate system, and the learning unit learns the inference parameter for inferring at least one of the posture, the speed, or the position of the sensor unit in the global coordinate system on a basis of the information to be the learning label in the global coordinate system with higher accuracy than the predetermined accuracy supplied from the learning label supply unit and the sensor value in the sensor coordinate system ( Figure 3, Page 18, Lines 24-31, “more reliable” ) . With regards to Claim 16, Faragher teaches wherein the inference device infers at least one of the posture, the speed, or the position of the sensor unit in the global coordinate system on a basis of the sensor value of the sensor unit in the sensor coordinate system by using the inference parameter learned by the learning unit (Page 27, Lines 5-16, “GNSS”) . With regards to Claim 17, Faragher teaches wherein the calculation unit calculates the information to be the learning label in the sensor coordinate system on a basis of the sensor value in the sensor coordinate system, and the learning unit learns the inference parameter for inferring at least one of the posture, the speed, or the position of the sensor unit in the sensor coordinate system on a basis of the information to be the learning label in the sensor coordinate system with higher accuracy than the predetermined accuracy supplied from the learning label supply unit and the sensor value in the sensor coordinate system (Page 18, Lines 24-31, Page 27, Lines 5-16) . With regards to Claim 18, Faragher teaches wherein the inference device is configured to: calculate the posture in the global coordinate system on a basis of the sensor value of the sensor unit in the sensor coordinate system; infer at least one of the speed or the position of the sensor unit in the sensor coordinate system on a basis of the sensor value of the sensor unit in the sensor coordinate system by using the inference parameter learned by the learning unit; and convert at least one of the speed or the position of the sensor unit in the sensor coordinate system inferred into at least one of the speed or the position of the sensor unit in the global coordinate system on a basis of the posture in the global coordinate system (Figure 12,Page 18, Lines 24-31, Page 27, Lines 5-16). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 10 3 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) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faragher et al. (WO 2020/074921 A1) in view of Fukumoto et al. (US 11,675,418). With regards to Claim 9, Faragher is silent with regards to a posture calculation unit that calculates an angle to be a posture of the sensor unit by integrating the angular velocity, and the learning label supply unit is configured to in a case where a posture change after integration of the angular velocity by the posture calculation unit is started does not exceed a predetermined value, supply information of the posture calculated by the posture calculation unit to the learning unit as the information to be the learning label with higher accuracy than the predetermined accuracy. Fukumoto teaches a posture calculation unit that calculates an angle to be a posture of the sensor unit by integrating the angular velocity, and the learning label supply unit is configured to in a case where a posture change after integration of the angular velocity by the posture calculation unit is started does not exceed a predetermined value, supply information of the posture calculated by the posture calculation unit to the learning unit as the information to be the learning label with higher accuracy than the predetermined accuracy (S121 and S122, Figure 10, Column 11, Lines 1-21) . It would have been obvious at the time of filing to include a posture calculation unit that calculates an angle to be a posture of the sensor unit by integrating the angular velocity, and the learning label supply unit is configured to in a case where a posture change after integration of the angular velocity by the posture calculation unit is started does not exceed a predetermined value, supply information of the posture calculated by the posture calculation unit to the learning unit as the information to be the learning label with higher accuracy than the predetermined accuracy as taught by Fukumoto into Faragher for the purpose of improving the accuracy of the captured motions. With regards to Claim 10, Fukumoto teaches when the sensor unit is stationary, the learning label supply unit resets the information of the posture calculated by the posture calculation unit at the acceleration of the sensor value (Column 11, Lines 1-21). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 5-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Sujoy K Kundu whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-8586 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 8-5 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. 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. /SUJOY K KUNDU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2471