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
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 28 June 2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the word “comprises” should be changed to --includes-- and all the reference character numbers should be deleted. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The lengthy 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 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 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 17 recites “An earthquake detection method, comprising: detecting vibration and acquiring an acceleration of the vibration; determining whether or not the vibration is an earthquake on the basis of the acceleration of the vibration acquired; adjusting an offset amount according to a magnitude of the vibration after a detection of noise included in the vibration detected; determining whether or not the vibrations have converged; and determining whether or not an origin correction of the acceleration is to be performed, according to whether or not the offset amount calculated according to the magnitude of the vibration after the detection of noise is the same as the previous offset amount, at a point when a specific length of time has elapsed since the time when it was determined that the vibrations had converged.”
Claim 18 recites “An earthquake detection program that causes a computer to execute an earthquake detection method comprising: detecting vibration and acquiring an acceleration of the vibration; determining whether or not the vibration is an earthquake on the basis of the acceleration of the vibration acquired; adjusting an offset amount according to a magnitude of the vibration after a detection of noise included in the vibration detected; determining whether or not the vibrations have converged; and determining whether or not an origin correction of the acceleration is to be performed, according to whether or not the offset amount calculated according to the magnitude of the vibration after the detection of noise is the same as the previous offset amount, at a point when a specific length of time has elapsed since the time when it was determined that the vibrations had converged.”
Claims 17 and 18, in view of the claim limitations, recite the abstract idea of “detecting vibration and acquiring an acceleration of the vibration; determining whether or not the vibration is an earthquake on the basis of the acceleration of the vibration acquired; adjusting an offset amount according to a magnitude of the vibration after a detection of noise included in the vibration detected; determining whether or not the vibrations have converged; and determining whether or not an origin correction of the acceleration is to be performed, according to whether or not the offset amount calculated according to the magnitude of the vibration after the detection of noise is the same as the previous offset amount, at a point when a specific length of time has elapsed since the time when it was determined that the vibrations had converged.”
As a whole, in view of the claim limitations, but for the computer components and systems performing the claimed functions, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the recited “detecting vibration and acquiring an acceleration of the vibration; determining whether or not the vibration is an earthquake on the basis of the acceleration of the vibration acquired; adjusting an offset amount according to a magnitude of the vibration after a detection of noise included in the vibration detected; determining whether or not the vibrations have converged; and determining whether or not an origin correction of the acceleration is to be performed, according to whether or not the offset amount calculated according to the magnitude of the vibration after the detection of noise is the same as the previous offset amount, at a point when a specific length of time has elapsed since the time when it was determined that the vibrations had converged.”; therefore, the claims recite mental processes and mathematical concepts. Accordingly, the claims recite a mental process and a mathematical concept, and thus, the claims recite an abstract idea under the first prong of Step 2A.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under the second prong of Step 2A. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea of“[a] computer- implemented method” and “the method is carried out by one or more physical processors configured by machine-readable instructions” as recited in claims 17 and 18, individually and when viewed as an ordered combination, and pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation, each of the additional elements are computing elements recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea on a computer (i.e. apply it), and thus, are no more than applying the abstract idea with generic computer components.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B. As noted above, the aforementioned additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea, as an order combination, are no more than mere instructions to implement the idea using generic computer components (i.e. apply it), and further, generally link the abstract idea to a field of use, which is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea; therefore, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Furthermore, as an ordered combination, these elements amount to generic computer components performing repetitive calculations, receiving or transmitting data over a network, which, as held by the courts, are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d); July 2015 Update, p. 7. Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use a generic arrangement of generic computer components and recitations of generic computer structure that perform well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions that are used to “apply” the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Since there are no limitations in these claims that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that these claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mino et al (US 11,307,318).
Regarding claim 1, Mino et al disclose a seismic sensor (Figures 1-3, element 1), comprising: an acceleration acquisition unit (11, 101) configured to detect vibration and acquires an acceleration of the vibration (column 8, lines 48-53); an earthquake determination unit (105) configured to determine whether the vibration is an earthquake on the basis of the acceleration acquired by the acceleration acquisition unit (column 9, lines 21-38); an offset adjustment unit (108) configured to adjust an offset amount according to a magnitude of the vibration after detecting noise included in the vibration detected by the earthquake determination unit (column 9, lines 41-55); and a convergence determination unit (103) configured to determine whether the vibrations have converged (column 9, lines 21-38).
Mino et al disclose the claimed invention except for explicitly reciting an origin correction necessity determination unit configured to determine whether or not to perform origin correction of the acceleration according to whether or not the offset amount calculated according to the magnitude of the vibration after the noise was detected is the same as the previous offset amount once a specific length of time has elapsed since a point when the convergence determination unit determined that the vibrations had converged.
However, Mino et al disclose the earthquake determination unit (105) determines that an earthquake has occurred, when a difference between a maximum value and a minimum value of acceleration measured in the determination period is 100 gal or more (column 11, line 26 to column 12, line 10; column 15, lines 16-28).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to determine whether or not the offset amount calculated according to the magnitude of the vibration after the noise was detected is the same as the previous offset amount once a specific length of time has elapsed since a point when the convergence determination unit determined that the vibrations had converged, as disclosed in Mino et al, for the purpose of determining the actual time when the earthquake has occurred.
Regarding claim 2, Mino et al disclose wherein, when the offset amount is about the same as the previous offset amount, the offset adjustment unit (108) performs offset adjustment using the new offset amount (column 9, lines 50-65).
Regarding claim 3, Mino et al disclose wherein, once the specific length of time has elapsed, the offset adjustment unit (108) uses an offset amount that is larger than the previous offset amount to perform offset adjustment including origin correction of the acceleration (column 11, line 26 to column 12, line 10; column 15, lines 16-28).
Regarding claim 4, Mino et al further disclose wherein the convergence determination unit (103) determines whether or not the vibrations have converged after a specific time has elapsed since a determination by the earthquake determination unit (column 9, lines 21-38).
Regarding claim 5, Mino et al disclose wherein, when the origin correction necessity determination unit determines that origin correction is necessary, the offset adjustment unit performs origin correction of acceleration in a horizontal plane to correct deviation in a direction of gravitational acceleration (column 13, line 36 to column 14, line 6).
Regarding claim 6, Mino et al disclose wherein the offset adjustment unit (108) adjusts the offset amount when the earthquake determination unit determines that the vibration is not an earthquake (column 13, lines 1-21).
Regarding claim 7, Mino et al disclose further comprising a main body part to which the acceleration acquisition unit is provided, wherein the origin correction necessity determination unit determines whether the main body part is tilted after the vibrations have converged, according to whether or not the offset amount is about the same as the previous offset amount (column 11, line 26 to column 12, line 10; column 15, lines 16-28).
Regarding claim 8, Mino et al disclose further comprising an acceleration waveform generation unit configured to generate an acceleration waveform indicating a relation between elapsed time and the acceleration acquired by the acceleration acquisition unit (column 15, lines 1-15).
Regarding claim 9, Mino et al disclose further comprising a frequency sensing unit configured to sense a frequency of the acceleration waveform generated in the acceleration waveform generation unit (column 3, line 62 to column 4, line 11).
Regarding claim 10, Mino et al disclose wherein the earthquake determination unit (105) determines whether or not the vibration is an earthquake on the basis of the frequency sensed by the frequency sensing unit (column 13, lines 36-55).
Regarding claim 11, Mino et al disclose further comprising an earthquake magnitude calculation unit (106) configured to determine whether or not the earthquake is at or over a specific seismic level when the earthquake determination unit (105) has determined that it is an earthquake (column 9, lines 39-49).
Regarding claim 12, Mino et al disclose further comprising an output unit (107) configured to output a specific signal when the earthquake determination unit (105) has determined that it is an earthquake (Figure 3).
Regarding claim 13, Mino et al disclose further comprising an output unit (107) configured to output a specific signal when the earthquake determination unit (105) has determined that it is an earthquake, and further comprising an output control unit (202) configured to control the output of a signal from the output unit according to whether the magnitude of the earthquake calculated by the earthquake magnitude calculation unit is at or above a specific seismic level (Figure 5; column 12, lines 19-33).
Regarding claim 14, Mino et al disclose wherein the specific signal is a cutoff signal that halts a supply of energy (column 9, lines 39-49).
Regarding claim 15, Mino et al disclose wherein the specific signal is a warning signal that gives a warning to a user (Figure 5; column 12, lines 19-33).
Regarding claim 16, Mino et al disclose further comprising a storage unit (104) configured to store the offset amount (Figure 5).
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Mino et al disclose an earthquake detection method (Figures 1-3), comprising: detecting vibration and acquiring (11, 101) an acceleration of the vibration (column 8, lines 48-53); determining (105) whether or not the vibration is an earthquake on the basis of the acceleration of the vibration acquired unit (column 9, lines 21-38); adjusting (108) an offset amount according to a magnitude of the vibration after a detection of noise included in the vibration detected (column 9, lines 41-55); and determining whether or not the vibrations have converged (column 9, lines 21-38);
Mino et al disclose the claimed invention except for explicitly reciting determining whether or not an origin correction of the acceleration is to be performed, according to whether or not the offset amount calculated according to the magnitude of the vibration after the detection of noise is the same as the previous offset amount, at a point when a specific length of time has elapsed since the time when it was determined that the vibrations had converged.
However, Mino et al disclose the earthquake determination unit (105) determines that an earthquake has occurred, when a difference between a maximum value and a minimum value of acceleration measured in the determination period is 100 gal or more (column 11, line 26 to column 12, line 10; column 15, lines 16-28).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to determine whether or not the offset amount calculated according to the magnitude of the vibration after the noise was detected is the same as the previous offset amount once a specific length of time has elapsed since a point when the convergence determination unit determined that the vibrations had converged, as disclosed in Mino et al, for the purpose of determining the actual time when the earthquake has occurred.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ueda et al (US 12,061,302) disclose a seismic that includes: an acceleration measuring unit configured to repeatedly measure acceleration in three directions orthogonal to each other; and an index value calculator configured to operate in a measurement mode for calculating an index value of a magnitude of an earthquake based on a measurement result of acceleration in at least one direction by the acceleration measuring unit, and to operate in a standby mode with less power consumption than power consumption in the measurement mode. Sakuma et al (US 10,739,476) disclose a seismic sensor that includes a measurement unit that measures an acceleration, a filtering unit that, if the acceleration measured by the measurement unit exceeds a predetermined threshold, causes a shift from the power-saving mode to the measurement mode to be performed, and performs filtering on the measured acceleration, an earthquake determination unit that determines whether or not an earthquake has occurred based on the filtered acceleration, and an index calculation unit that, if where the earthquake determination unit determined that an earthquake has occurred, calculates an index value indicating the scale of the earthquake. A shift from the measurement mode to the power-saving mode is performed if the earthquake determination unit determined that no earthquake has occurred. Hsu et al (US 2015/0331120) disclose a method of determining an earthquake event for an earthquake detecting system that includes: retrieving at least one initial wave characteristic related to each earthquake data among a plurality of earthquake data; utilizing a support vector classification (SVC) method to establish an earthquake determination model according to the initial wave characteristic; and determining whether new earthquake data belong to an earthquake event or a non-earthquake event according to the earthquake determination model when the new earthquake data are received.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AN H DO whose telephone number is (571)272-2143. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:00am-4:00pm.
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, Ricardo Magallanes can be reached on 571-272-5960. 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.
/AN H DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights