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 .
IDS
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 14, 2024 is being considered by the Examiner.
Drawing
The drawing filed on March 14, 2024 is accepted by the Examiner.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim rejection – 35 U.S.C §112
In reference to claims 1-8: the instant claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) or 35 U.S.C. §112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite: in reference to claims 1 and 8: the instant claims call for comparing the first sensor value and the second sensor value to “a first standard” in order to identify the normal operation of these two sensors; however, it is not clear what aspect of these two sensor values are compared to the standard value; furthermore, the second diagnosis which is performed as a failure diagnosis based on one of the angular velocities, and the angular acceleration of a different axis where this “comparison result does not satisfy the first standard” does not make logical sense because, the analysis involves two totally different attributes that are different dimensionally and in their characterization. Therefore, the overall analysis or concept is indefinite. The remaining claims 2-7 depend on claim 1 and inherit the attributes of the base claim and /or include similar issues.
Claims 1 and 8 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 2-7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Art of Interest
In reference to claims 1-8: Sato (U.S. Patent No. 12,392,797, hereon Sato) discloses inertial measurement device includes a first inertial sensor having a first detection axis, a second inertial sensor having a second detection axis defined in a direction opposite to the first detection axis, and a processing circuit configured to execute self-diagnosis based on whether a ratio of an amplitude of an output of the first inertial sensor to an amplitude of an output of the second inertial sensor is within a reference range (see Sato, Abstract).
The instant application differs in a sense that the system compares the two velocity sensors against the standard value indicating their normal behavior against one another, and the failure analysis in view of the third sensor value or angular acceleration as used with one of the angular velocity values as compared to a standard value provides information about the state of or condition of the first sensor.
Claim rejection – 35 U.S.C. §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.
In reference to claims 1-8: the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
The requirement for subject matter eligibility test for products and processes requires first, the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories. 35 U.S.C. §101 defines the four categories of invention that Congress deemed to be the appropriate subject matter of a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter. The latter three categories define "things" or "products" while the first category defines "actions" (i.e., inventions that consist of a series of steps or acts to be performed).
Second, the claimed invention also must qualify as patent-eligible subject matter, i.e., the claim must not be directed to a judicial exception unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception. The judicial exceptions (also called "judicially recognized exceptions" or simply "exceptions") are subject matter that the courts have found to be outside of, or exceptions to, the four statutory categories of invention, and are limited to abstract ideas, laws of nature and natural phenomena (including products of nature).
In the first step, it is to be determined whether the patent claim under examination is directed to an abstract idea. If so, in the second step of analysis, it is to be determined whether the patent adds to the idea "something more" or "significantly more" that embodies an "inventive concept."
In the instant case, claim 1 is representative and it is reproduced here with the limitations that are part of the abstract idea in bold:
A method for diagnosing a failure in a sensor module including a first sensor element configured to detect an angular velocity around a first axis and output a first detection signal, a second sensor element configured to detect an angular velocity around the first axis and output a second detection signal, and a third sensor element configured to detect an acceleration in a second-axis direction intersecting the first axis and output a third detection signal, the method comprising:
a first diagnosis step of comparing a first angular velocity with a second angular velocity and diagnosing that the first sensor element and the second sensor element are normal when a comparison result satisfies a first standard, the first angular velocity being the angular velocity around the first axis included in a first angular velocity signal based on the first detection signal, the second angular velocity being the angular velocity around the first axis included in a second angular velocity signal based on the second detection signal; and
a second diagnosis step of performing failure diagnosis of the first sensor element using the first angular velocity signal or the second angular velocity signal and an acceleration signal based on the third detection signal when the comparison result does not satisfy the first standard.
Step 2A:
Prong I: The claim recites the steps of "A method for diagnosing a failure a first diagnosis step of comparing a first angular velocity with a second angular velocity and diagnosing that the first sensor element and the second sensor element are normal when a comparison result satisfies a first standard, the first angular velocity being the angular velocity around the first axis included in a first angular velocity signal based on the first detection signal, the second angular velocity being the angular velocity around the first axis included in a second angular velocity signal based on the second detection signal; and a second diagnosis step of performing failure diagnosis of the first sensor element using the first angular velocity signal or the second angular velocity signal and an acceleration signal based on the third detection signal when the comparison result does not satisfy the first standard." These limitations could be carried out as a purely mental process (at least in a some relatively simple situations) and/or they could amount to a mathematical calculation (for example, comparing the two sensor values against a first standard). Therefore, the recited method falls in the abstract idea grouping of mental processes and/or mathematical concepts at Prong 1 of the §101 analysis.
Prong II:
This abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application at Prong 2 of the
§101 analysis because the claim does not recite sufficient additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim recites the method comprising the additional element steps of "a sensor module including a first sensor element configured to detect an angular velocity around a first axis and output a first detection signal, a second sensor element configured to detect an angular velocity around the first axis and output a second detection signal, and a third sensor element configured to detect an acceleration in a second-axis direction intersecting the first axis and output a third detection signal." However, these are considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity, namely generic components that are used for the purposes of gathering sensor data.
The courts have found that adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea (such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)) is not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a particular practical application or make the claim qualify as "significantly more" (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
The claim recites that the method also includes at least “one controller”. However, the it is just a merely a generic hardware element.
The claim does not recite applying the abstract idea with, or by use of, any particular machine, nor does the claim affect a real-world transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. The claim amounts to manipulating data: “A method for diagnosing a failure”. The claim does not recite any particular real-world actions that are taken as a result of the notification that is output. The claim establishes a computation as the general field-of-use, but does not recite a particular practical application being carried out within that field-of-use. Therefore, the claimed invention does not appear to be limited to the use of the mental process or math in a particular practical application, but instead the claim appears to monopolize the mental process or math itself, in any practical application where it might conceivably be used.
Step 2B:
Finally, at Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons as discussed above with regard to Prong 2. Claim 1 is rejected as ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim 8 is analogous to claim 1 of the instant application except that the claim is directed to a sensor module, which is a generic representation that fundamentally includes the steps noted in claim 1 of the instant application. The additional circuit or modular arrangements are generic in nature and do not include significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claim 2: the instant claim is directed to describing the detection accuracy of the sensor used in the system, which amounts to as insignificantly extra-solution activity.
Dependent claims 3-7: the instant claims are directed a computational analysis and are considered abstract idea.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Haller et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,639,415) discloses method for compensating inertial sensor measurement outputs for mounting locations that are not coincident, nor orthogonal, with the vehicle center of gravity. The method further utilizes vehicle angular rate measurements, data, or estimates to determine the discrete acceleration components of the composite inertial sensor measurement output.
Nozoe et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,089,091) discloses an angular velocity sensor which includes a driving part for stably vibrating a driving part of a sensor element having a driver part and a detector part for detecting an angular velocity and detection means for detecting the angular velocity of the sensor element and obtains a self-diagnosis signal for a malfunction by detecting a mechanical coupling signal obtained at the detection means.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIAS DESTA whose telephone number is (571)272-2214. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30 to 5:00 pm.
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, Andrew M Schechter can be reached at 571-272-2302. 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.
/ELIAS DESTA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights