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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-8 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claims 1-8 have been rejected.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed for Application No. JP2023-090752 on 11 July 2024.
The instant application therefore claims the benefit of priority under 35 U.S.C 119(a)-(d). Accordingly, the effective filing date for the instant application is 01 June 2023 claiming benefit to JP2023-090752.
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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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) 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) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
azimuth calculation device (claims 1-7)
first azimuth calculation unit (claim 1)
second azimuth calculation unit (claim 1)
third azimuth calculation unit (claim 1)
storage unit (claims 1 and 8)
temperature characteristic estimation unit (claims 1 and 7)
angular velocity bias prediction unit (claim 1)
The specification does not provide any structure for the device or units.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims 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 had possession of the claimed invention. An adequate written description for a computer-implemented functional claim limitation contains both the computer and the algorithm that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonable conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing. It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement (MPEP § 2161.01). The claims recite an azimuth calculation device (claims 1-7); a first azimuth calculation unit (claim 1); a second azimuth calculation unit (claim 1); a third azimuth calculation unit (claim 1); a storage unit (claims 1 and 8); a temperature characteristic estimation unit (claims 1 and 7); and an angular velocity bias prediction unit (claim 1) that, read in light of the specification, fail to adequately disclose the hardware for performing the steps of each unit/device. While the level of detail required to satisfy the written description requirement varies depending on the nature and scope of the claims and on the complexity and predictability of the relevant technology, the claims read in light of the specification fail to disclose the computer hardware for performing the azimuth calculation in sufficient detail. When a means- (or step-) plus-function claim limitation is found to be indefinite based on failure of the specification to disclose sufficient corresponding structure, materials, or acts that perform the entire claimed function, then the claim limitation necessarily lacks an adequate written description. Thus, when a claim is rejected as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because there is no corresponding structure, materials, or acts, or an inadequate disclosure of corresponding structure, materials, or acts, for a means- (or step-) plus-function claim limitation, then the claim must also be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for lack of an adequate written description – see MPEP § 2163.03(VI) and MPEP § 2163(II)(3)(a).
Claims 2-6 depend on claim 1 and do not remedy the written description requirement issues of claim 1. As dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of the claims they depend on, they are also rejected.
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim limitations “azimuth calculation device (claims 1-7); first azimuth calculation unit (claim 1); second azimuth calculation unit (claim 1); third azimuth calculation unit (claim 1); storage unit (claims 1 and 8); temperature characteristic estimation unit (claims 1 and 7); and angular velocity bias prediction unit (claim 1)” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification fails to have any specific hardware configuration or computer for performing the claimed steps. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Examiner will interpret the claims as reciting software units applied via a computing device hereinafter.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2-6 depend on claim 1 and do not remedy the indefiniteness issues of claim 1. As dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of the claims they depend on, they are also rejected.
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1 – Statutory Categories of Invention:
Claims 1-8 are drawn to a device or method, which are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A – Judicial Exception Analysis, Prong 1:
Independent claim 1 recites a device for azimuth calculation. Independent claim 8 recites a method of azimuth calculation.
These independent claims recite the following steps best characterized as mathematical concepts under MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I) citing the abstract idea grouping for mathematical concepts in general:
calculating a first azimuth based on a satellite signal received by a satellite signal receiver or a detection result of an external sensor
calculating a second azimuth based on an angular velocity signal output from an angular velocity sensor detecting an angular velocity
calculating a third azimuth based on the first azimuth and the second azimuth
estimating, based on the second azimuth and the third azimuth, a temperature characteristic of an angular velocity bias for a temperature detected by a temperature sensor
predicting the angular velocity bias based on the temperature detected by the temperature sensor and the temperature characteristic information stored in the storage unit
updating, based on the estimated temperature characteristic, the temperature characteristic information
wherein the second azimuth with the angular velocity bias corrected is calculated based on the angular velocity bias last time predicted in the angular velocity bias prediction step.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitations, these limitations are best characterized as representing mathematical relationships - see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A). Examiner notes that while the claims recite the use of data collected by satellite signal receiver, external sensor, and temperature sensor, neither independent claims positively recite a receiving step, but merely recite the sensors/receiver as the intended source of data analysed in the claim. Therefore, Examiner has not analyzed said sensors/receiver as additional elements in Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
Dependent claim 2 recites, in part, wherein the angular velocity bias is approximated by a polynomial having a temperature change as a variable.
Dependent claim 3 recites, in part, wherein the temperature characteristic information includes a value of a coefficient of the polynomial for each of a plurality of temperatures.
Dependent claim 4 recites, in part, wherein the polynomial is a linear polynomial.
Dependent claim 5 recites, in part, wherein the angular velocity bias is a bias of an angular velocity of the second azimuth.
Dependent claim 6 recites, in part, wherein the angular velocity bias is a bias of an angular velocity around a yaw axis detected by the angular velocity sensor.
Dependent claim 7 recites, in part, estimating the value of the coefficient as the temperature characteristic and calculating a variance of the estimated coefficient, and in a case in which the temperature characteristic information includes the value of the coefficient for the temperature detected by the temperature sensor, updating the value of the coefficient included in the temperature characteristic information to the estimated value of the coefficient when the variance is equal to or less than a predetermined threshold value and does not update the value of the coefficient included in the temperature characteristic information when the variance is larger than the predetermined threshold value.
Each of these steps of the preceding dependent claims only serve to further limit or specify the features of independent claim 1 accordingly, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same mathematical concept abstract idea grouping as the independent claim and utilize the additional elements analyzed below in the expected manner.
Step 2A – Judicial Exception Analysis, Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements within the claims only amount to instructions to implement the judicial exception using a computer [MPEP 2106.05(f)].
The claims recite an azimuth calculation device (claims 1-7); a first azimuth calculation unit (claim 1); a second azimuth calculation unit (claim 1); a third azimuth calculation unit (claim 1); a storage unit (claims 1 and 8); a temperature characteristic estimation unit (claims 1 and 7); and an angular velocity bias prediction unit (claim 1). The specification does not have any structure for performing said calculations or the bounds of what is included in the device or units. The use of a device with corresponding units, in this case to perform azimuth calculations, only recites the device and corresponding units as a tool to apply data to an algorithm and report the results (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2) see case involving a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer within the “Other examples.. i.”) amounting to instruction to implement the abstract idea using a general purpose computer. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 1357 (2014).
Claims 1 and 8 recite updating, based on the estimated temperature characteristic, temperature characteristic information of the angular velocity bias stored in a storage unit. The limitations are only recited as a tool which only serves to input data for use by the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(g) - insignificant pre-solution activity that amounts to mere data gathering to obtain input) and is therefore not a practical application of the recited judicial exception.
The above claims, as a whole, are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B – Additional Elements that Amount to Significantly More:
The present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to more than the abstract idea because the additional elements or combination of elements amount to no more than a recitation of instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
The claims recite an azimuth calculation device (claims 1-7); a first azimuth calculation unit (claim 1); a second azimuth calculation unit (claim 1); a third azimuth calculation unit (claim 1); a storage unit (claims 1 and 8); a temperature characteristic estimation unit (claims 1 and 7); and an angular velocity bias prediction unit (claim 1).
Each of these elements is only recited as a tool for performing steps of the abstract idea, such as the use of the storage mediums to store data, the computer and data processing devices to apply the algorithm, and the display device to display selected results of the algorithm. These additional elements therefore only amount to mere instructions to perform the abstract idea using a computer and are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2016.05(f) see for additional guidance on the “mere instructions to apply an exception”).
Each additional element under Step 2A, Prong 2 is analyzed in light of the specification’s explanation of the additional element’s structure. The claimed invention’s additional elements do not have sufficient structure in the specification to be considered a not well-understood, routine, and conventional use of generic computer components. Note that the specification can support the conventionality of generic computer components if “the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)” (MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A) integrating the evidentiary requirements in making a § 101 rejection as established in Berkheimer in III. Impact on Examination Procedure, A. Formulating Rejections, 1. on p. 3).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Claims 1 and 8 recite updating, based on the estimated temperature characteristic, temperature characteristic information of the angular velocity bias stored in a storage unit. The courts have decided that storing and retrieving information in memory as well-understood, routine, conventional activity as a computer function when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).
Claims 1-8 are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Subject Matter Free of the Prior Art
The following is an examiner’s statement of subject matter free of the prior art:
The ordered combination of limitations in independent claims 1 and 8 stating: calculate a first azimuth based on a satellite signal; calculate a second azimuth based on an angular velocity; calculate a third azimuth based on the first azimuth and the second azimuth; estimate, based on the second azimuth and the third azimuth, a temperature characteristic of the angular velocity bias for a temperature detected by a temperature sensor and updates, based on the estimated temperature characteristic, the temperature characteristic information; and predict the angular velocity bias based on the temperature and the temperature characteristic information is free of the prior art.
The most remarkable prior arts of record are as follows:
Feng Yibo et. al., An Adaptive Compensation Algorithm for Temperature Drift of Micro-Electro-Mechanical Systems Gyroscopes Using a Strong Tracking Kalman Filter, 15 Sensors 11223-11238 (May 13, 2015) teaching on predicting an angular velocity error from an angular velocity azimuth and an external sensor based azimuth with consideration of temperature drift in the § 3.2 The STKF for Model Parameters on p. 11226-11228
Fujita (WO 2024180582 A1) teaching on calculating a correction value for correcting the position of a moving body by using a second Kalman filter on the basis of the angular velocity of the azimuth angle measured by the angular velocity sensor, the initial azimuth angle value, the three-dimensional acceleration measured by an acceleration sensor, the initial three-dimensional position value, and three-dimensional coordinate values measured by the GNSS receiver in the § Description of the Configuration in ¶ 023, ¶ 026, in the § Description of Operation in ¶ 048-50, and ¶ 053-55
Kido et al. (US 20190033465 A1) teaching on correcting a positioning bias from an angular velocity based on a temperature drift determined from two azimuths – here a lane map and subject vehicle azimuth in the Detailed Description in ¶ 0192-204
Kimishima (US 20210116242 A1) teaching on calculating and removing an angular velocity bias based on an absolute azimuth change between two estimated values in the § Modes for Carrying out the Invention in ¶ 0133 and ¶ 0137-141
While each of the prior art references teach on determining an angular velocity measurement error from calculated azimuths, none teach specifically on the mathematical claimed angular velocity bias calculated from the temperature and the temperature characteristic determined from a third azimuth combination of a satellite and angular velocity azimuths specifically. Therefore, claims 1-8 are free of the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORDAN LYNN JACKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5389. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-4:30PM ET.
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, Arleen M Vazquez can be reached at 571-272-2619. 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.
/JORDAN L JACKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights