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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 03 January 2024 is acknowledged and the information referred to therein has been considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 7, 8, 10, and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 recites "the inner surface" in line 2. This should be "an inner surface."
Claim 7 recites "on outside" in line 2. This should be "on an outside" or simply "outside," as appropriate.
Claims 8 and 11 recites "corresponds to −90 degree position" and "corresponds to +90 degree position" in the second and third clauses thereof. These should be "corresponds to a −90 degree position" and "corresponds to a +90 degree position."
Claim 10 recites "at least one arm (1)" in line 13. The numeral in parenthesis should be deleted.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term "lightweight" in claims 1 and 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "lightweight" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Lightweight is in fact a entirely relative term, as nearly any object or material can be considered "light" relative to something heavier. The specification gives examples of what may be considered lightweight, but the bounds of what is considered lightweight or non-lightweight are not clear. For the purpose of examination, "lightweight" has been broadly considered to mean "of a weight capable of movement within the enclosure."
Claims 2-9 and 11 depend from claims 1 and 10 and are similarly indefinite.
Claim 9 also uses the term "low coefficient of friction." "Low" is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "low" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of examination, "low coefficient of friction" is broadly considered to mean that the relevant surfaces are able to move smoothly with respect to one another.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9,664,512 to Srinivasan and JP H06-258337 to Koshimoto et al. (hereinafter referred to as Koshimoto; cited by applicant).
With regards to claim 1, Srinivasan teaches a device (see, e.g., fig. 8 or fig. 10), the device comprising:
an enclosure (elements 8 and/or 14);
an armature movably disposed inside the enclosure, the armature comprising:
a hub (element 9); and
a plurality of arms (rods 1-6) made of lightweight material and extending from the hub (the rods are capable of movement within the enclosure to determine orientation, and are thus "lightweight"), each of the plurality of arms is defined with at least one roller (rollers 7) at a free end and configured to contact an inner surface of the enclosure (see fig. 8, 10), such that at least one arm of the plurality of arms is defined with an opaque roller (see col. 6, ll. 57-61; steel, aluminum, etc., are opaque);
wherein, the armature is configured to displace within the enclosure about at least one axis in response to force imparted on the object (described in at least col. 8, ll. 34-40; this is common to all embodiments), and displaces the at least one arm of the plurality of arms to a predefined angular position (such that rod 1 is aligned with the direction of gravity) between a first position (e.g., the position of the leftmost element 15 in fig. 8) and a second position (e.g., the position of the rightmost element 15 in fig. 8) (see at least col. 8, ll. 34-40);
a plurality of sensors (sensors 15) embedded on at least a portion of an outer surface of the enclosure at close proximity (to element 8) (see fig. 8); and
at least one light source (element S) positioned adjacent to the enclosure and configured to illuminate the accelerometer (at least part of rod 1; see fig. 8),
wherein, the opaque roller is configured to block light from reaching at least one sensor of the plurality of sensors corresponding to the predefined angular position of the at least one arm of the plurality of arms, indicative of the force on the object (col. 7, ll. 33-49; note that given the positioning of the light source S, the (opaque) roller would block dispersed or reflected light from the source from reaching at least one sensor 15 when the applied force is such that the roller is positioned between the light source S and said sensor 15).
PNG
media_image1.png
755
849
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Srinivasan does not expressly teach the device being an accelerometer for determining acceleration of an object.
Koshimoto teaches the feature of determining acceleration by monitoring and comparing quantities of light detected at a sensor element 5, the light being blocked by a ball 1 that is acted on by the acceleration (abstract).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Srinivasan such that the sensor area is widened and the location of light and/or shadows on the sensor is used to determine acceleration rather than simple orientation in a manner similar to in Koshimoto. Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of enabling one of ordinary skill in the art to also determine motion parameters (such acceleration and velocity) for vehicular or robotic platforms.
With regards to claim 2, the combination of Srinivasan and Koshimoto teaches the accelerometer as claimed in claim 1. Srinivasan further teaches the enclosure contacting the object (see contact with platform 10 in fig. 8, etc.) (for determination of the acceleration as per the applied combination).
With regards to claim 3, the combination of Srinivasan and Koshimoto teaches the accelerometer as claimed in claim 1. However, as applied this combination does not expressly teach the enclosure being accommodated in a transparent housing. Nevertheless, Srinivasan teaches that forming the outer parts of this device of a translucent material would enable visual determination of at least the orientation of the platform (col. 8, ll. 50-57). In light hereof, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the enclosure (element 8 in Srinivasan ) be accommodated in a transparent housing (element 14 in Srinivasan). Doing so would similarly allow a user do determine orientation visually, which would be useful in certain vehicular environments (planes, etc.).
With regards to claim 4, the combination of Srinivasan and Koshimoto teaches the accelerometer as claimed in claim 1. Srinivasan further teaches the plurality of arms including at least three pairs of arms, each pair of arms protruding from the hub towards the inner surface of the enclosure along a coordinate axis (see fig. 7, etc.).
With regards to claim 5, the combination of Srinivasan and Koshimoto teaches the accelerometer as claimed in claim 4. Srinivasan further teaches each of the pairs of arms extending orthogonally from the hub relative to other pairs of arms (again, see fig. 7).
With regards to claim 6, the combination of Srinivasan and Koshimoto teaches the accelerometer as claimed in claim 1. Srinivasan further teaches the enclosure being a transparent enclosure of spherical shape configured to allow passage of light onto the plurality of sensors (see col. 2, ll. 37-38 and fig. 8, if element 8 were not transparent, light could not reach sensors 15).
With regards to claim 7, the combination of Srinivasan and Koshimoto teaches the accelerometer as claimed in claim 6. Srinivasan further teaches the plurality of sensors being embedded on (an) outside of at least one of a lower hemispherical surface, an upper hemispherical surface, a right hemispherical surface, and a left hemispherical surface of the spherical shaped enclosure.
With regards to claim 8, the combination of Srinivasan and Koshimoto teaches the accelerometer as claimed in claim 1. Srinivasan further teaches the at least one arm (rod 1) remains at a home position when no acceleration is imparted on the object (e.g., pointing toward the bottommost element 15 when the platform is positioned such that this is the direction of gravity); a first position corresponds to −90 degree position of the at least one arm of the plurality of arms (e.g., the position of the leftmost element 15 in fig. 8); and a second position corresponds to +90 degree position of the at least one arm of the plurality of arms (e.g., the position of the rightmost element 15 in fig. 8), wherein, the home position lies between the first position and the second position (see fig. 8).
With regards to claim 9, the combination of Srinivasan and Koshimoto teaches the accelerometer as claimed in claim 1. Srinivasan further teaches the enclosure and the rollers are made of a material having low coefficient of friction (implied by the rollers freely rolling across the enclosure without any slippage as per col. 6, ll. 18-23).
With regards to claim 10, Srinivasan teaches a method of determining orientation of an object, comprising:
positioning the object (platform P) in contact with a device (indicating device 100), the device comprising:
an enclosure (elements 8 and/or 14),
an armature movably disposed inside the enclosure, the armature comprising:
a hub (element 9); and
a plurality of arms (rods 1-6) extending from the hub (see fig. 7, 8, etc.), each of the plurality of arms defined with at least one roller (rollers 7) at a free end and configured to contact an inner surface of the enclosure (see fig. 8, 10), such that at least one arm of the plurality of arms is defined with an opaque roller (see col. 6, ll. 57-61; steel, aluminum, etc., are opaque);
wherein, the armature is configured to displace within the enclosure about at least one axis in response to force imparted on the object (described in at least col. 8, ll. 34-40; this is common to all embodiments), and displaces the at least one arm of the plurality of arms to a predefined angular position (such that rod 1 is aligned with the direction of gravity) between a first position (e.g., the position of the leftmost element 15 in fig. 8) and a second position (e.g., the position of the rightmost element 15 in fig. 8) (see at least col. 8, ll. 34-40); and
a plurality of sensors (sensors 15) embedded on at least a portion of an outer surface of the enclosure (see fig. 8);
positioning at least one light source adjacent to the device (see element S, see fig. 8), the at least one light source configured to illuminate the device (at least part of rod 1, elements 8, 14, and the sensors 15; see fig. 8), such that the opaque roller is configured to block light from reaching at least one sensor of the plurality of sensors corresponding to the predefined angular position of the at least one arm )(col. 7, ll. 33-49; note that given the positioning of the light source S, the (opaque) roller would block dispersed or reflected light from the source from reaching at least one sensor 15 when the applied force is such that the roller is positioned between the light source S and said sensor 15); and
receiving a signal from the at least one sensor corresponding to the predefined angular position of the at least one arm, the signal indicative of the force of the object (col. 7, ll. 26-49).
Srinivasan does not expressly teach determining acceleration of an object, or the device being an accelerometer.
Koshimoto teaches the feature of determining acceleration by monitoring and comparing quantities of light detected at a sensor element 5, the light being blocked by a ball 1 that is acted on by the acceleration (abstract).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Srinivasan such that the sensor area is, for example but not necessarily so, widened, and the location of light and/or shadows on the sensor is used to determine acceleration rather than simple orientation in a manner similar to in Koshimoto. Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of enabling one of ordinary skill in the art to also determine motion parameters (such acceleration and velocity) for vehicular or robotic platforms.
With regards to claim 11, the combination of Srinivasan and Koshimoto teaches the method as claimed in claim 10. Srinivasan further teaches the at least one arm (rod 1) remains at a home position when no acceleration is imparted on the object (e.g., pointing toward the bottommost element 15 when the platform is positioned such that this is the direction of gravity); a first position corresponds to −90 degree position of the at least one arm (e.g., the position of the leftmost element 15 in fig. 8); and a second position corresponds to +90 degree position of the at least one arm (e.g., the position of the rightmost element 15 in fig. 8), wherein, the home position lies between the first position and the second position (see fig. 8).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2025/0093379 is a conceptually related application from the same inventor dealing with determining acceleration using an element that rolls in a circular housing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James Split whose telephone number is (571)270-1524. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9:00 to 3:30.
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, Judy Nguyen can be reached at (571)272-2258. 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.
/JS/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/JUDY NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858