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
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s communication filed on 7 July 2026. In virtue of this communication, claims 1-20 are currently presented in the instant application. Presently, claims 1-11 have been amended, and claims 12-20 have been withdrawn from consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/7/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the combination of record does not disclose that the prediction portions of the claims.
For the former, Examiner disagrees that the prior art does not teach or disclose predicting a future angular velocity and acceleration based on the current angular velocity and acceleration detected by using a predetermined coefficient generated by learning. Learning is broad and could conceivably mean anything, including one of ordinary skill in the art doing routine experimentation to figure out the best coefficients and equations to generate these values. While later claims specify that the neural network exists, it does not specifically perform the predict step, and only exists as part of the circuity without influencing the measurements in any way.
However, these points are all relatively moot as all of the claims are now considered to be new matter based on the amendments submitted.
In each of the independent claims, the detection steps are now specifically “current angular velocity and acceleration OF at least one inertial measurement unit (IMU)” and “predict … detected BY the at least one IMU…”. There is no evidence of any circuity that detects the angular velocity and acceleration of the IMU (rather than by the IMU), and as the detection is of the IMU, then the prediction cannot be based on the current angular velocity/acceleration detected by the IMU, which does not exist in the claims (antecedent basis issues at a minimum).
As the prior art does not disclose detecting the angular velocity/acceleration of the IMU (all of them detect it by the IMU), an art rejection will not be made, but if the amendment was corrected to by, they would be maintained with the arguments related to the prediction above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
As discussed in the response to arguments above, there is no evidence that any detection of the IMU is performed, and so the amendment is considered to be both new matter and non-enabling disclosure.
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.
Claims 1, 10, and 11 recites the limitation "the current angular velocity and acceleration detected by the at least one IMU". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
See above response to arguments how these detections are not claimed as the previous limitation says that the “current angular velocity and acceleration” is of the IMU instead.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIANA HANCOCK whose telephone number is (571)270-7547. The examiner can normally be reached on 10AM-6PM EST M-F.
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, Stephanie Bloss can be reached on (571) 272-3555. 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.
/D.H/Examiner, Art Unit 2852
7/31/2026
/STEPHANIE E BLOSS/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights