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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanabe (US 2017/0104864) in view of Yang (US 2022/0369293).
As to claim 1, Tanabe discloses a device 1 (see at least figure 1) comprising: two or more sensors 9b, 9c configured to independently indicate whether an aircraft on which the device 1 is aboard is in flight or stationary (see paragraphs [0033], [0037], [0066]); and a controller 10 coupled to the two or more sensors 9b, 9c and configured to: receive, from the two or more sensors 9b, 9c, a first indication that the aircraft is in flight (see paragraphs [0033], [0037], [0066]; figure 3); receive, from the two or more sensors, a second indication that the aircraft is stationary (see paragraphs [0033], [0037], [0066]; figure 3).
Tanabe fails to disclose that in response to the second indication, calibrate an orientation of the device. Yang discloses that in response to an indication that a device is stationary, calibrate an orientation of the device (see paragraph [0248]). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Yang to Tanabe, in order to determine an orientation of the device when it is in its stationary state (as suggested by Yang).
As to claim 3, Tanabe fails to disclose that the two or more sensors include a gyroscope. Yang discloses a gyroscope (see paragraph [0248]). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Yang to Tanabe, in order to yield predictable results such as providing high-speed response and stability.
As to claim 4, Tanabe discloses that the controller 10 (see figure 1) is further configured to: determine, based on acceleration data from at least one of the two or more sensors 9b, 9c, whether the aircraft is in flight or stationary. See paragraphs [0033], [0037], [0066]; figure 3.
As to claim 5, Tanabe discloses that the controller 10 (see figure 1) is further configured to: determine, based on the acceleration data, whether a variance of an acceleration of the device 1 in a dimension indicates that the aircraft is in flight or stationary. See paragraphs [0046], [0050].
As to claim 6, Tanabe discloses that the dimension is parallel to a direction of gravity. See paragraphs [0031], [0034], [0050].
As to claim 7, Tanabe discloses that the controller 10 (see figure 1) is further configured to: determine based on the acceleration data, whether a magnitude of the acceleration of the device in a plane orthogonal to the dimension indicates that the aircraft is in flight or stationary. See paragraphs [0031], [0034], [0050].
As to claim 8, the combination of Tanabe and Yang discloses that the controller 10 (see figure 1) is further configured to: determine, based on motion sensor data from at least one of the two or more sensors; and determine whether the sensor data indicates that the aircraft is in flight or stationary. See paragraphs [0033], [0037], [0066]. The combination of Tanabe and Yang fails to disclose determine an average amount of motion of the device over a programmed period of time. The examiner, however, takes Official Notice that determining an average sensor data over a programmed period of time is known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above combination of Tanabe and Yang as claimed, in order to yield predictable results such as reducing random fluctuation, improving decision-making accuracy and efficiency.
As to claim 9, Tanabe discloses that the two or more sensors of the device include a GPS receiver, and the controller is further configured to: analyze GPS position data from the GPS receiver; and determine, based on the analysis of the GPS position data, whether the aircraft is in flight or stationary. See paragraph [0081].
As to claim 10, Tanabe fails to disclose that the controller 10 is further configured to determine, based on the GPS position data, a velocity of the device 1 (see figure 1); and the determination of whether the aircraft is in flight or stationary is performed according to the velocity of the device. The examiner, however, takes Official Notice that such a teaching is known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above combination of Tanabe and Yang as claimed, in order to yield predictable results such as providing a simple way of determining whether the aircraft is in flight or stationary.
Claims 2, 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanabe in view of Yang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jones (US 2014/0188638).
As to claim 2, the combination of Tanabe and Yang fails to disclose that the controller is configured to calibrate the orientation of the device by being further configured to generate a rotation matrix. Jones discloses calibrating an orientation of a device by being further configured to generate a rotation matrix. See paragraphs [0287], [0288], [0291]. Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Jones to the combination of Tanabe and Yang, in order to yield predictable results such as normalizing data samples so that all samples are aligned with Earth gravity and can be more accurately analyzed in 2D space.
As to claim 11, it is rejected for similar reasons with respect to claim 2 as set forth above. Jones further discloses that the acceleration data is indicative of an acceleration of the device in at least one dimension relative to an orientation of the device; and transform the acceleration data from being indicative of the acceleration of the device in the at least one dimension relative to the orientation of the device to being indicative of the acceleration of the device in the at least one dimension relative to a direction of gravity. See paragraphs [0287], [0288], [0295], [0317], [0732].
As to claim 12, Tanabe discloses that the controller 10 (see figure 1) is further configured to: determine, based on acceleration data, whether the aircraft is in flight or stationary. See paragraphs [0033], [0037], [0066]; figure 3.
As to claim 13, Tanabe discloses that the controller 10 (see figure 1) is further configured to: determine, based on the acceleration data, whether a variance of an acceleration of the device 1 in a particular dimension indicates that the aircraft is in flight or stationary. See paragraphs [0046], [0050].
As to claim 14, Tanabe discloses that the particular dimension is parallel to a direction of gravity. See paragraphs [0031], [0034], [0050].
As to claim 15, Tanabe discloses that the controller 10 (see figure 1) is further configured to: determine based on the acceleration data, whether a magnitude of the acceleration of the device in a plane orthogonal to the particular dimension indicates that the aircraft is in flight or stationary. See paragraphs [0031], [0034], [0050].
As to claim 16, Tanabe fails to disclose that the two or more sensors include a gyroscope. Yang discloses a gyroscope (see paragraph [0248]). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Yang to Tanabe, in order to yield predictable results such as providing high-speed response and stability.
As to claim 17, the combination of Tanabe and Yang discloses that the controller 10 (see figure 1) is further configured to: determine, based on motion sensor data from at least one of the two or more sensors; and determine whether the sensor data indicates that the aircraft is in flight or stationary. See paragraphs [0033], [0037], [0066]. The combination of Tanabe and Yang fails to disclose determine an average amount of motion of the device over a programmed period of time. The examiner, however, takes Official Notice that determining an average sensor data over a programmed period of time is known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above combination of Tanabe and Yang as claimed, in order to yield predictable results such as reducing random fluctuation, improving decision-making accuracy and efficiency.
As to claim 18, Tanabe discloses that the controller 10 is further configured to: determine, based on GPS position data from at least one of the two or more sensors 9b, 9c, whether the aircraft is in flight or stationary. See paragraph [0081].
As to claim 19, Tanabe fails to disclose that the controller 10 is further configured to determine, based on the GPS position data, a velocity of the device 1 (see figure 1); and the determination of whether the aircraft is in flight or stationary is performed according to the velocity of the device. The examiner, however, takes Official Notice that such a teaching is known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above combination of Tanabe and Yang as claimed, in order to yield predictable results such as providing a simple way of determining whether the aircraft is in flight or stationary.
As to claim 20, Tanabe discloses a communication module 6 (see figure 1) configured to communicate wirelessly with a communication network, and wherein the controller is further configured to: responsive to a determination that the aircraft is in flight, switch operation of the communication module from a first mode to a second mode, wherein the first mode enables certain wireless communication of the communication module when the aircraft is stationary, and the second mode disables the certain wireless communication when the aircraft is in flight. See paragraphs [0041], [0048].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Li (US 12,520,333) discloses in response to an indication that a device is stationary, calibrate an orientation of the device (see column 11 line 56 to column 12 line 5).
AU 2018286615 A1 discloses calibrating device orientation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NGUYEN THANH VO whose telephone number is (571)272-7901. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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, Matthew Anderson can be reached at (571) 272-4177. 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.
/NGUYEN T VO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646