Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/793,972

POSITIONING APPARATUS, POSITIONING METHOD, AND PROGRAM

Final Rejection §103§DP
Filed
Aug 05, 2024
Examiner
KHATIB, RAMI
Art Unit
3669
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Sony Corporation
OA Round
2 (Final)
78%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
91%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 78% — above average
78%
Career Allow Rate
665 granted / 858 resolved
+25.5% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+13.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
50 currently pending
Career history
908
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
16.8%
-23.2% vs TC avg
§103
35.6%
-4.4% vs TC avg
§102
19.9%
-20.1% vs TC avg
§112
24.7%
-15.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 858 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §DP
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 . Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 1-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14, and 16-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,085,391 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, and 15-16 of the current application appear to be a broader version of claims 1, and 16-17. Claims 1, and 15-16 of the current application recite all the limitations recited in claims 1, and 16-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,085,391 B2 except “wherein the estimated movement vector indicates a movement amount and a movement direction of a device”, “calculate a relative position of the device for the predetermined time period with respect to a specified reference position in a real space”, “a display control unit configured to initiate display of a trajectory of the relative position of the device for the predetermined time period with respect to the specified reference position in the real space”, and “in each of the plurality of prior predetermined time periods” (see detailed analysis in the table below of claims 1, and same analysis not shown applies to claims 15-16 vs 16-17). Claims 2-14 of the current application recite all the limitations recited in claims 2-14 U.S. Patent No. 12,085,391 B2 word for word. 18/793,972 U.S. Patent No. 12,085,391 B2 Claim 1: A positioning apparatus, comprising: an acceleration sensor configured to output an acceleration of the positioning apparatus; an angular velocity sensor configured to output an angular velocity of the positioning apparatus; a movement vector estimator configured to estimate a movement vector in a predetermined time period using a machine learning model based on the acceleration and the angular velocity retrieved from the acceleration sensor and the angular velocity sensor in the predetermined time period; and an integration section configured to integrate the estimated movement vector as a relative position with respect to a reference position, wherein the machine learning model is trained in advance on a basis of acceleration of one or more devices and an angular velocity of the one or more devices, and wherein the movement vector estimator and the integration section are each implemented via at least one processor. Claim 1: A positioning apparatus, comprising: a movement vector estimator configured to estimate a movement vector using a machine learning model, wherein the estimated movement vector indicates a movement amount and a movement direction of a device in a predetermined time period, wherein the movement vector is estimated on a basis of input data to the machine learning model, the input data including acceleration of the device in the predetermined time period and an angular velocity of the device in the predetermined time period, wherein the acceleration of the device is detected by an acceleration sensor, and wherein the angular velocity of the device is detected by an angular velocity sensor; an integration section configured to integrate the estimated movement vector, and calculate a relative position of the device for the predetermined time period with respect to a specified reference position in a real space; and a display control unit configured to initiate display of a trajectory of the relative position of the device for the predetermined time period with respect to the specified reference position in the real space, wherein the machine learning model is trained in advance on a basis of acceleration of one or more devices in each of a plurality of prior predetermined time periods and an angular velocity of the one or more devices in each of the plurality of prior predetermined time periods, and wherein the movement vector estimator and the integration section are each implemented via at least one processor 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. Claim(s) 1 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak KR 101301462 B1 (the examiner is providing an English translation and relying upon, hence Kwak) in view of Gohl et al US 2019/0208101 A1 (hence Gohl). In re claims 1, 15, and 16, Kwak discloses a pedestrian inertial navigation device and its navigation using a lowcost inertial sensor (Paragraph 0001) and teaches the following: an acceleration sensor configured to output an acceleration of the positioning apparatus (Paragraph 0022 “an acceleration sensor (110)”); an angular velocity sensor configured to output an angular velocity of the positioning apparatus (Paragraph 0022 “a gyroscope (1400”, and Paragraph 0057 “measured angular velocity”); a movement vector estimator configured to estimate a movement vector in a predetermined time period (Paragraph 0023 “A pedestrian inertial navigation device (100) tracks the position of a pedestrian using a lowcost acceleration sensor (110) and a gyroscope (140)”, Paragraph 0028 “The step detection module (120) is configured to detect a pedestrian's step using the measurement value of the acceleration sensor”, Paragraph 0029 “estimate the step length of a pedestrian using the steps detected by the step detection module (120)”, and Paragraph 0031 “estimate the attitude and heading angle of a pedestrian using the measurement values of the gyroscope (140)”, step length, attitude, and heading angle read on “vector”, and Paragraph 0033) using a machine learning model based on the acceleration retrieved from the acceleration sensor in the predetermined time period (Paragraph 0072 “various techniques for estimating step length using an acceleration sensor (110)” and “an artificial neural network model”); and an integration section configured to integrate the estimated movement vector as a relative position with respect to a reference position (Paragraph 0076 “Coordinate transformation is required for rotation between the navigation frame of the acceleration sensor (110) and the gyroscope (140) and the body frame”, Paragraph 0100 “detects the pedestrian's step using the measurement value of the acceleration sensor (110)”, Paragraph 0101 “estimates the step length of the pedestrian”, and Paragraph 0102 “estimates the attitude and heading angle of the pedestrian using the measurement values of the gyroscope (140)”), wherein the machine learning model is trained in advance on a basis of acceleration of one or more devices (Paragraph 0072 “various techniques for estimating step length using an acceleration sensor (110)” and “an artificial neural network model”), and wherein the movement vector estimator and the integration section are each implemented via at least one processor (Paragraph 0022) However, Kwak discloses the machine learning model is trained using acceleration retrieved from the acceleration sensor in the predetermined time period (Paragraph 0072 “various techniques for estimating step length using an acceleration sensor (110)” and “an artificial neural network model”), but doesn’t explicitly teach the following: using a machine learning model based on the angular velocity retrieved from the angular velocity sensor in the predetermined time period Nevertheless, Gohl discloses an image stabilization device (Abstract) and teaches the following: using a machine learning model based on the angular velocity retrieved from the angular velocity sensor in the predetermined time period (Paragraph 0088 “The machine learning algorithm can be provided with a training data set that includes video sequences and corresponding handle motion profiles, rotational velocities, accelerations, and the like”) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the Kwak reference to include training the machine learning model with angular velocity, as taught by Gohl, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to detect movement of a device (Gohl, Paragraph 0090). In re claim 14, Kwak teaches the following: wherein the machine learning model has a configuration of a neural network (Paragraph 0072 “an artificial neural network model”) Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Breed US 2008/0147280 A1 discloses a method and apparatus for sensing a rollover using a neural network trained to determine whether the vehicle is experiencing a rollover based on the measured acceleration of the vehicle and the measured angular velocity of the vehicle. Senta WO 2017/085756 A1 discloses an information processing device having an acquisition unit for acquiring angular velocity output by an angular velocity sensor, a calculation unit for using the acquired angular velocity to calculate information about a first angular velocity in a prescribed period and information about a second angular velocity in the next period after the prescribed period, and a setting unit for, if the difference between the calculated information about the first angular velocity and second angular velocity does not exceed a preset first threshold, estimating an amount of zero-point deviation corresponding to the angular velocity and setting the zero point of the angular velocity sensor by subtracting the amount of zero-point deviation from the output values of the angular velocity sensor. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMI KHATIB whose telephone number is (571)270-1165. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am-5:30pm. 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, Erin M Piateski can be reached at 571-270 7429. 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. /RAMI KHATIB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 05, 2024
Application Filed
Dec 08, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §DP
Mar 24, 2026
Response Filed
Apr 15, 2026
Final Rejection — §103, §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12596013
METHOD AND DEVICE FOR CREATING A DIGITAL MAP AND FOR OPERATING AN AUTOMATED VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594830
ELECTRIC WORK VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12597302
AIR PRESSURE LIMITING VALVE DIAGNOSTIC SYSTEMS AND METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12576851
VEHICLE PASS MANEUVERING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12560445
METHODS, SYSTEMS, AND VEHICLES FOR DYNAMIC ROUTING
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
78%
Grant Probability
91%
With Interview (+13.3%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 858 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month