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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the accelerometer (or acceleration sensor in claim 15), vehicle, in-vehicle mobile telematics device, positioning/location system, central server, location determining device, and mobile computing device must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
INFORMATION ON HOW TO EFFECT DRAWING CHANGES
Replacement Drawing Sheets
Drawing changes must be made by presenting replacement sheets which incorporate the desired changes and which comply with 37 CFR 1.84. An explanation of the changes made must be presented either in the drawing amendments section, or remarks, section of the amendment paper. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). A replacement sheet must include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of the amended drawing(s) must not be labeled as “amended.” If the changes to the drawing figure(s) are not accepted by the examiner, applicant will be notified of any required corrective action in the next Office action. No further drawing submission will be required, unless applicant is notified.
Identifying indicia, if provided, should include the title of the invention, inventor’s name, and application number, or docket number (if any) if an application number has not been assigned to the application. If this information is provided, it must be placed on the front of each sheet and within the top margin.
Annotated Drawing Sheets
A marked-up copy of any amended drawing figure, including annotations indicating the changes made, may be submitted or required by the examiner. The annotated drawing sheet(s) must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheet” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings.
Timing of Corrections
Applicant is required to submit acceptable corrected drawings within the time period set in the Office action. See 37 CFR 1.85(a). Failure to take corrective action within the set period will result in ABANDONMENT of the application.
If corrected drawings are required in a Notice of Allowability (PTOL-37), the new drawings MUST be filed within the THREE MONTH shortened statutory period set for reply in the “Notice of Allowability.” Extensions of time may NOT be obtained under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136 for filing the corrected drawings after the mailing of a Notice of Allowability.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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 Claim Interpretation section is divided into three parts, I., II., and III., below:]
I. 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses 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 limitation(s) is/are: the positioning/location system in claim 10 (with corresponding structure described at published paragraphs [0053], etc. of the specification), the in-vehicle mobile telematics device (as introduced e.g., claims 18 and 21, having claimed functions of [apparently, though indefinitely in claim 18] receiving the transmitted set of axis independent acceleration values and capturing acceleration data [in claim 21], with corresponding structure described at published paragraph [0055], [0064], etc. of the specification), and the location determining device in claim 19 (with corresponding structure described at published paragraphs [0052], etc. of the specification).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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 this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
II. Regarding the preamble limitation “for generating a vehicle mileage” in claim 1, line 1, the examiner considers this to be a non-limiting statement reciting purpose or intended use that is not necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to the claim. See MPEP 2111.02. See also MPEP 2111.02, II.1
III. Regarding claim 23, the undertaking of the calibration/model building stage is understood to be a product-by-process limitation, and is given no weight in patentability determination by the examiner. See MPEP 2113, I. (“"[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself.”)
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 to 11, 14 to 21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) 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, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, applicant has apparently not described, in sufficient detail, by what algorithm(s)2, or by what steps or procedure, he calculated, based on the acceleration readings captured, an axis independent acceleration value. Accordingly, the examiner believes that applicant has not evidenced, to those skilled in the art, possession of the full scope3 of the claimed invention (e.g., calculating the axis independent acceleration value in any or all ways that might be based on the captured acceleration readings), but has only (if anything) described a desired result.
In this respect, applicant does not apparently describe the full scope of any or all “axis independent acceleration values” (or even define the term with reasonable certainty; see below) but the specification indicates this at published paragraph [0025], [0045], and [0046]:
[0025] The one or more characteristics of the acceleration readings captured may be used for one or more of the axes in the calculation of the axis independent acceleration values. The axis independent acceleration value(s) is therefore preferably based on one or more characteristics of the acceleration readings captured in relation to one or more of the axes, but be axis independent, so as to measure a variation of the acceleration and correlating that to speed and therefore distance.
[0045] The axis independent acceleration value(s) can be established using a mathematical formula. Preferably, the mathematical formula will remove the dependent [sic] on the particular axes in which the acceleration is measured.
[0046] One formula which can be used for calculation of the axis independent acceleration value(s) is:
s
q
r
t
(
x
_
max
-
x
_
m
i
n
)
^
2
+
(
y
_
max
-
y
_
m
i
n
)
^
2
+
(
z
_
max
-
z
_
m
i
n
)
^
2
However, these paragraphs describe (e.g., unclearly) one formula that can permissively be used to calculate the axis independent acceleration values, and applicant claims all ways (e.g., all formulas and other mathematical constructs such as vector dot products, generating a Euclidean or other norm, simply ignoring or not mathematically accounting for the axis of the acceleration readings in subsequent calculations/steps4, etc.) of calculating any or all acceleration value(s) that might possibly be called “axis independent” acceleration value(s) based on captured acceleration readings, for example only, all ways of calculating the value(s) even when the acceleration readings are captured on only “one ax[i]s” (line 4), as the claim covers and encompasses. Accordingly, the examiner believes that applicant has not evidenced, to those skilled in the art, possession of the full scope of the claimed invention (e.g., calculating the axis independent acceleration value in any or all ways that might be based on the captured acceleration readings, as the claim covers and encompasses), but has only (if anything) described a desired result.
Regarding claims 6 and 9, applicant has apparently not described, in sufficient detail, by what algorithm(s), or by what steps or procedure, he generated or obtained the set of fit coefficients for the set of axis independent acceleration values as compared to the observed speeds of the vehicle, e.g., by correlating the axis independent acceleration values with the observed speed data. Accordingly, the examiner believes that applicant has not evidenced, to those skilled in the art, possession of the full scope of the claimed invention, but has only (if anything) described a desired result.
In this respect, published paragraph [0037] of the specification indicates this:
[0037] To obtain the fit coefficients, the axis independent acceleration values are preferably aligned/correlated with the observed speed data. This is preferably done at the same collection frequency, for example 100 Hz axis independent acceleration values are aggregated to, and correlated with, 1 Hz speed data (although any capture frequency could be used for the acceleration data and/or the speed data).
Published paragraph [0040] indicates:
[0040] The method may be divided into a calibration or model building stage where the acceleration measurements are used to calculate an axis independent acceleration value correlated with an observed speed of the vehicle. This may in turn be used to generate the set of fit coefficients.
Published paragraph [0058] indicates this, in part:
[0058] . . . Once developed, the set of axis independent acceleration values correlated with different observed speeds of the vehicle can then be used directly to estimate mileage or used to develop the set of fit coefficients which is then used to estimate mileage.
Published paragraph [0074] indicates:
[0074] The method may be divided into a setup or calibration stage where the acceleration measurements are used to calculate an axis independent acceleration value correlated with an observed speed of the vehicle. This may in turn be used to generate the set of fit coefficients for the set of axis independent acceleration values as compared to the observed speeds of the vehicle.
Published paragraph [0076], like published paragraph [0037], indicates:
[0076] To obtain the fit coefficients, the axis independent acceleration values are preferably aligned/correlated with the observed speed data. This is preferably done at the same collection frequency, for example 100 Hz axis independent acceleration values are aggregated to, and correlated with, 1 Hz speed data (although any capture frequency could be used).
However, the specification apparently does not describe, in sufficient detail, the algorithm(s) or steps/procedure by which the fit coefficients were generated or obtained or developed. For example, no sufficient algorithm(s) that would result in or define any particular fit coefficient(s) is apparently described, in sufficient detail. In particular, following the teachings of paragraphs [0037] and [0076], even if the axis independent acceleration values were aligned/correlated with the observed speed data at for example, 100 Hz, and correlated with 1 Hz speed data5, it is not apparently described, in sufficient detail, how this would result in any particular fit coefficient being generated or obtained or developed. Accordingly, the examiner believes that applicant has not evidenced, to those skilled in the art, possession of the full scope of the claimed invention, but has only (if anything) described a desired result.
Regarding claims 7, 8, and 23, applicant has apparently not described, in sufficient detail, by what algorithm(s), or by what steps or procedure, he used e.g., the set of fit coefficients to estimate the speed of any vehicle or to estimate mileage. Accordingly, the examiner believes that applicant has not evidenced, to those skilled in the art, possession of the full scope of the claimed invention, but has only (if anything) described a desired result.
For example, published paragraph [0033] indicates this:
[0033] The method may further include the step of comparing the calculated axis independent acceleration value to the threshold axis independent acceleration value to determine whether the vehicle is moving and only estimating the speed of the vehicle when it has been determined that the vehicle is moving.
Published paragraph [0035] indicates:
[0035] The method may include the further step of using the set of fit coefficients and/or the set of axis independent acceleration values correlated with an observed speed of the vehicle, to estimate the speed of any vehicle. Once the set of fit coefficients and/or the set of axis independent acceleration values correlated with an observed speed of the vehicle have been determined, the set of fit coefficients and/or the set of axis independent acceleration values correlated with an observed speed of the vehicle can be used to estimate the speed of any similar vehicle based only on the capture of the acceleration readings using an accelerometer while the vehicle is in motion, based solely on the vibration of the vehicle as measured by the acceleration sensor. This allows the mileage to be estimated even without data from a location device or a distance measuring device.
Published paragraph [0077] indicates this:
[0077] The method may include an implementation stage where, once a set of fit coefficients and/or a set of axis independent acceleration values correlated with an observed speed of the vehicle have been established, these may be loaded onto an in-vehicle mobile telematics device which can then estimate mileage of the vehicle based solely on the acceleration data measure by the acceleration sensor of the in-vehicle mobile telematics device (or of another associated device) when converted to one or more axis independent acceleration values. The one or more axis independent acceleration values measured during a vehicle journey can be mapped to a vehicle speed, based on the set of fit coefficients and/or the set of axis independent acceleration values correlated with an observed speed of the vehicle, to estimate mileage (through calculating speed of travel multiplied by the time at that speed).
Published paragraph [0078] indicates this:
[0078] Once the set of fit coefficients and/or the set of axis independent acceleration values correlated with an observed speed of the vehicle have been determined, the set of fit coefficients and/or the set of axis independent acceleration values correlated with an observed speed of the vehicle can be used to estimate the speed of any similar vehicle based only on the capture at least minimum and maximum acceleration readings in each of an X-axis, a Y-axis and a Z-axis using an acceleration sensor while the vehicle is in motion, based solely on the vibration of the vehicle as measured by the acceleration sensor. This allows the mileage to be estimated even without data from a location device or a distance measuring device.
Published paragraph [0081] indicates this:
[0081] The method may further include the step of setting a threshold axis independent acceleration value, with an axis independent acceleration value above the threshold indicating that the vehicle is moving. This may involve comparing the calculated axis independent acceleration value to the threshold axis independent acceleration value to determine whether the vehicle is moving and only estimating the speed of the vehicle when it has been determined that the vehicle is moving.
Published paragraph [0088] indicates this, in part:
[0088] . . . The central server may implement the method to arrive a set of fit coefficients and/or the set of axis independent acceleration values correlated with an observed speed of the vehicle, and then transmit the set of fit coefficients and/or the set of axis independent acceleration values correlated with an observed speed of the vehicle, to the in-vehicle mobile telematics device. The in-vehicle mobile telematics device may then be able to estimate the speed of the vehicle and thus estimate the mileage of one or more journeys.
However, the specification apparently does not describe, in sufficient detail, the algorithm(s) or steps/procedure by which the set of fit coefficients (and/or the set of axis independent acceleration values correlated with an observed speed of the vehicle) were used to estimate the speed of any vehicle or to estimate mileage. Accordingly, the examiner believes that applicant has not evidenced, to those skilled in the art, possession of the full scope of the claimed invention, but has only (if anything) described a desired result.
Regarding claims 18 and 23, applicant has apparently not described, in sufficient detail, by what algorithm(s), or by what steps or procedure, he (obtained, e.g., by the central server implementing the method of claim 1, and) transmitted “the set of axis independent acceleration values correlated with an observed vehicle speed or the set of fit coefficients based thereon”6 to the in-vehicle telematics device (claim 18) or used that/those set(s) to estimate mileage (claim 23). Accordingly, the examiner believes that applicant has not evidenced, to those skilled in the art, possession of the full scope of the claimed invention, but has only (if anything) described a desired result.
[Here, the examiner notes that this (“based thereon”) language only appears in the claims, and the manner in which the “the set of axis independent acceleration values” is claimed in these claims apparently contradicts or is at variance with independent claim 1 (e.g., claims 18 and 23 recite that the set is correlated with “an observed speed” while claim 1 recites that the set is correlated with “different observed speeds”.]
For example, published paragraph [0035] indicates this:
[0035] The method may include the further step of using the set of fit coefficients and/or the set of axis independent acceleration values correlated with an observed speed of the vehicle, to estimate the speed of any vehicle. Once the set of fit coefficients and/or the set of axis independent acceleration values correlated with an observed speed of the vehicle have been determined, the set of fit coefficients and/or the set of axis independent acceleration values correlated with an observed speed of the vehicle can be used to estimate the speed of any similar vehicle based only on the capture of the acceleration readings using an accelerometer while the vehicle is in motion, based solely on the vibration of the vehicle as measured by the acceleration sensor. This allows the mileage to be estimated even without data from a location device or a distance measuring device.
Published paragraphs [0042], [0043], and [0049] indicate:
[0042] The method may then include an implementation stage where, once the set of fit coefficients and/or the set of axis independent acceleration values correlated with an observed speed of the vehicle have been established, these may be loaded onto an in-vehicle mobile telematics device which can then estimate mileage of the vehicle based solely on the acceleration data measure by the acceleration sensor and converted to one or more axis independent acceleration values. The one or more axis independent acceleration values can be mapped to a speed based on the set of fit coefficients and/or the set of axis independent acceleration values correlated with an observed speed of the vehicle to estimate mileage. The implementation or estimation stage of the method may be implemented on board an in-vehicle mobile telematics device and/or an associated device which could be mobile, such as a smartphone or tablet for example and/or a computer server or network. The implementation or estimation stage preferably requires only the acceleration readings and the set of fit coefficients and/or a set of axis independent acceleration values correlated with observed speed.
[0043] Preferably, once a set of fit coefficients and/or a set of axis independent acceleration values correlated with observed speed has been developed, either or both of these sets may be provided to an in-vehicle mobile telematics device, so that the estimated mileage can be calculated on board the in-vehicle mobile telematics device without the need for reliance on an associated location determining device or a device with the ability to determine its location and therefore observed vehicle speed.
[0049] According to a third aspect there is provided a system comprising an in-vehicle mobile telematics device and a central server implementing the method according to the broad aspect or the first aspect and transmitting the set of fit coefficients and/or the set of axis independent acceleration values correlated with an observed speed of the vehicle to the in-vehicle mobile telematics device.
Published paragraph [0088] indicates:
[0088] The method may be implemented in a system comprising an in-vehicle mobile telematics device and a central server. The in-vehicle mobile telematics device may capture the acceleration data and transfer the captured data to the central server for processing. In particular, the central server may undertake the processing of the captured data for a calibration stage which may involve more data and thus require greater processing power. The central server may implement the method to arrive a set of fit coefficients and/or the set of axis independent acceleration values correlated with an observed speed of the vehicle, and then transmit the set of fit coefficients and/or the set of axis independent acceleration values correlated with an observed speed of the vehicle, to the in-vehicle mobile telematics device. The in-vehicle mobile telematics device may then be able to estimate the speed of the vehicle and thus estimate the mileage of one or more journeys.
However, the specification apparently does not describe, in sufficient detail, the algorithm(s) or steps/procedure by which applicant (obtained, e.g., by the central server implementing the method of claim 1, and) transmitted the “set of fit coefficients based thereon” to the in-vehicle telematics device or used that set to estimate mileage. For examples only, where is it described by what algorithm(s) the central server controlled at least one accelerometer on-board the vehicle to capture acceleration readings while the vehicle was in motion, according to claim 1, and transmitted the sets of axis independent acceleration values that were correlated with a vehicle speed or fit coefficients based thereon, or by what algorithm(s) the in-vehicle mobile telematics device transmitted the sets of values and coefficients to itself? Similarly, where is it described by that algorithms applicant estimated the mileage i) using the sets of axis independent acceleration values that were correlated with a vehicle speed or fit coefficients based thereon? Accordingly, the examiner believes that applicant has not evidenced, to those skilled in the art, possession of the full scope of the claimed invention, but has only (if anything) described a desired result.
In this respect, see e.g., MPEP 2161.01, I., which indicates, “[O]riginal claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. See MPEP §§ 2163.02 and 2181, subsection IV.”
See also e.g., MPEP 2163, I., A. which indicates, “However, as discussed in subsection I, supra, issues of adequate written description may arise even for original claims, for example, when an aspect of the claimed invention has not been described with sufficient particularity such that one skilled in the art would recognize that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. . . . An invention described solely in terms of a method of making and/or its function may lack written descriptive support where there is no described or art-recognized correlation between the disclosed function and the structure(s) responsible for the function.”
See also MPEP 2163.03, V. which indicates, “An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved or (2) a broad genus claim is presented but the disclosure only describes a narrow species with no evidence that the genus is contemplated. See Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). The written description requirement is not necessarily met when the claim language appears in ipsis verbis in the specification. "Even if a claim is supported by the specification, the language of the specification, to the extent possible, must describe the claimed invention so that one skilled in the art can recognize what is claimed. The appearance of mere indistinct words in a specification or a claim, even an original claim, does not necessarily satisfy that requirement." Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 2002).”
Claims 1 to 11, 14 to 21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 1, line 3, “the vehicle” has insufficient antecedent basis (previously, only a “vehicle mileage” but not a “vehicle” is recited) and is therefore unclear, and could be changed to, “a vehicle”, if such be applicant’s intent, to overcome this portion of the rejection.
In claim 1, lines 5ff, “an axis independent acceleration value” is indefinite and not reasonably certain7 in the claim context (e.g., how can the value possibly be calculated so as to be “independent” of the [accelerometer] axis when the accelerometer only captures readings on one axis, as line 4 of the claim permits and covers/encompasses, and the value would therefore apparently be necessarily dependent at least on the acceleration reading in that one axis?) and from the teachings of the specification8 which indicates (e.g., unclearly) at published paragraph [0025] that, “The axis independent acceleration value(s) is therefore preferably based on one or more characteristics of the acceleration readings captured in relation to one or more of the axes, but be axis independent, so as to measure a variation of the acceleration and correlating that to speed and therefore distance.” How can a value be both “based on” characteristics of acceleration readings captured in relation to one or more axes AND be axis independent? This is unclear.
Moreover, in the only example of actually calculating the “axis independent acceleration value”, it is indicated at paragraph [0046] that the following formula may be used:
s
q
r
t
(
x
_
max
-
x
_
m
i
n
)
^
2
+
(
y
_
max
-
y
_
m
i
n
)
^
2
+
(
z
_
max
-
z
_
m
i
n
)
^
2
If the axis independent acceleration value is (apparently) calculated by formula based on (for example only) the maximum x-axis acceleration, and if it goes up when the maximum x-axis acceleration goes up and goes down when the maximum x-axis acceleration goes down, then how can the calculated value be said to be “axis independent”, since it clearly depends on axis acceleration values/readings in the one or more axes, being (in the case of the maximum acceleration) proportional thereto?
In claim 2, line 2, “statistical characteristics” is unclear with indeterminate metes and bounds from the teachings of the specification. For example, is a frequency a statistical characteristic, is a duration a statistical characteristic, is an acceleration magnitude or direction a statistical characteristic? Why of why not?
In claim 3, line 2, “at least minimum and maximum acceleration readings are used” is indefinite in the claim context and from the teachings of the specification (which does not define these terms with reasonable certainty). For examples only, as to the minimum acceleration reading, “minimum” defined how relative to other acceleration readings (e.g., minimum on a per-axis basis or minimum of all axes?), minimum over what period of time (e.g., while/whenever the vehicle is in motion per published paragraphs [0028] and [0078], during any time step at paragraph [0059], “over time” [whatever that means] at paragraph [0075] and in FIGS. 1 and 2, or “each second, and more preferably, multiple times every second at a capture frequency” which “may be 100 Hz”, as at paragraph [0100]?), and minimum based on absolute magnitude (e.g., with “zero” acceleration/deceleration therefore being a/the minimum) or minimum based on the signed magnitude of acceleration (e.g., with maximum deceleration therefore being a/the minimum), etc. Similar ambiguities arise with maximum acceleration. Because the minimum and maximum accelerations readings are thus open to multiple interpretations, without reasonably certain metes and bounds, the claim language is considered indefinite. See MPEP 2173.02, I., “For example, if the language of a claim, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph is appropriate.”
In claim 5, line 3, “the threshold axis independent acceleration value” apparently has no antecedent basis and is unclear.
In claim 6, line 2, and in claim 18, line 4, “a set of fit coefficients” is indefinite and unclear from the teachings of the specification (e.g., fit coefficients defined particularly how?)
In claim 6, lines 3ff, “as compared to the observed speeds of the vehicle” is indefinite and unclear (e.g., what is being compared to the observed speeds, and how is this comparison characterized to make the “as compared” phrase reasonably certain in scope or metes and bounds?)
In claim 7, line 2, “the set of fit coefficients” apparently has no proper antecedent basis, and is unclear for this reason and for the reason given with respect to claim 6 above.
In claim 7, lines 2ff, “the set of fit coefficients and/or the set of axis independent acceleration values correlated with an observed speed of the vehicle” is indefinite and unclear (e.g., what, particularly, is being correlated with the observed speeds, and how can whatever is being correlated be correlated to a single “observed speed of the vehicle”?) In this respect, if it is “the set of axis independent acceleration values” that is being correlated with “an observed speed of the vehicle”, then this is indefinite and unclear, also having apparent insufficient antecedent basis, since the previously introduced set of axis independent acceleration values, in claim 1, was recited as being, “a set of axis independent acceleration values correlated with different observed speeds [plural] of the vehicle”. This is unclear.
In claim 7, lines 3ff, “to estimate the speed of any vehicle” is indefinite and unclear, with “the speed” having insufficient antecedent basis in this context, and “any vehicle” being unclear in scope (e.g., does “any vehicle” mean one vehicle, some vehicles, or every vehicle?9)
In claim 9, line 2, “to obtain the fit coefficients” is unclear (e.g., is this different from generating the set of fit coefficients in claim 6? If it is, how, since the set of axis independent acceleration values are already correlated with observed speeds of the vehicle in claim 1? If not, how is obtaining the fit coefficients different from generating the set of fit coefficients?)
In claim 10, “capturing observed speed data” is indefinite in the claim context (e.g., observed speed data of what, particularly?)
In claim 11, line 2, “the capturing of an observed speed of the vehicle” is indefinite with insufficient antecedent basis (e.g., is this referring to the capturing of “observed speed data” in claim 10 that was not recited as being “of a vehicle”?)
In claim 14, line 2, “the acceleration data” has insufficient antecedent basis and is unclear.
In claim 14, line 3, “[. . . are divided into] one or more bands or bins for processing optimization” is indefinite and unclear (e.g., bands or bins of what defined particularly how, processing optimization defined particularly how so as to not be facially subjective per MPEP 2173.05(b), IV.?)
In claim 15, line 2, “the at least one acceleration sensor” is indefinite and unclear, with insufficient antecedent basis (e.g., is applicant attempting to refer back to the “at least one accelerometer” of claim 1, perhaps?)
In claim 15, lines 2ff, “[the at least one acceleration sensor captures] the maximum acceleration, minimum acceleration and a mean acceleration value on each axis” is indefinite in the claim context and from the teachings of the specification (which does not define these terms with reasonable certainty). For examples only, as to the minimum acceleration, “minimum” over what period of time (e.g., while/whenever the vehicle is in motion per published paragraphs [0028] and [0078], during any time step at paragraph [0059], “over time” [whatever that means] at paragraph [0075] and in FIGS. 1 and 2, or “each second, and more preferably, multiple times every second at a capture frequency” which “may be 100 Hz”, as at paragraph [0100]?), and minimum based on absolute magnitude (e.g., with “zero” acceleration/deceleration therefore being a/the minimum) or minimum based on the signed magnitude of acceleration (e.g., with maximum deceleration therefore being a/the minimum), etc. Similar ambiguities arise with maximum acceleration. As to the “mean acceleration value”, is unclear how or that the acceleration sensor would capture that value, which is normally obtained through derivation and not captured by the sensor. Moreover, it is unclear what the “mean acceleration value” is a mean of (e.g., perhaps acceleration values read over some time period?) For example, if the acceleration was constant such as perhaps “zero”, would that constant value be all three of the maximum acceleration, the minimum acceleration, and the mean acceleration? Why or why not? Because the minimum and maximum and mean acceleration values are thus open to multiple interpretations, without reasonably certain metes and bounds, the claim language is considered indefinite. See MPEP 2173.02, I., “For example, if the language of a claim, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph is appropriate.”
In claim 16, lines 2ff, “an associated computing device” is indefinite and unclear with indeterminate metes and bounds (e.g., “associated” in what way, particularly, and “associated” with what, particularly?)
The structure of claim 18 is indefinite in its entirety since i) it is unclear (from the grammar of the claim) if the central server, or if the in-vehicle mobile telematics device and the central server, implements the method of claim 1, and ii) if the central server (alone) is said to implement the method, then it is unclear from the teachings of the specification how the central server could possibly “control[] at least one accelerometer on-board the vehicle to capture acceleration readings in one or more axes while the vehicle is in motion” as required by claim 1, and iii) if the in-vehicle mobile telematics device and the central server are said to implement the method, then it is unclear how the in-vehicle mobile telematics device and the central server (together) might be said to (e.g., perform the calculation and generation of claim 1 and) transmit the set of axis independent acceleration values correlated with an observed speed and the set of fit coefficients based thereon “to the in-vehicle mobile telematics device”, as required by claim 18. See MPEP 2173.02, I., “For example, if the language of a claim, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph is appropriate.”
In claim 18, lines 3ff, and in claim 23, lines 4ff, “the set of axis independent acceleration values correlated with an observed speed of the vehicle” is indefinite and unclear, having insufficient antecedent basis, since the previously introduced set of axis independent acceleration values, in claim 1, was recited as being, “a set of axis independent acceleration values correlated with different observed speeds [plural] of the vehicle”. This is unclear.
In claim 18, line 4, and in claim 23, line 5, “a set of fit coefficients based thereon” is indefinite and unclear, with the set of “fit coefficients” being unclear indefinite and unclear from the teachings of the specification (e.g., fit coefficients defined particularly how, and fitting what to what particularly in what particular manner?), and with “based thereon” being unclear in the claim context (e.g., based on what claim element recited earlier in the claim10, particularly?)
In claim 21, lines 4ff, “to allow matching of the acceleration data and the location data” is indefinite with indeterminate metes and bounds (e.g., what is necessary, from the teachings of the specification, to “allow matching” of the data?)
In claim 23, line 3, “during a calibration/model building stage” is indefinite in the system claim (e.g., stage of what or building what, particularly?)
In claim 23, lines 3ff, “once . . . has been undertaken” is indefinite and unclear in the context of the system claim (e.g., is this reciting an act or step that has happened in the past, in the system, or something else? See MPEP 2173.05(p), II. and MPEP 2113, I.)
Claim(s) depending from, or otherwise referring in shorthand format to, claims expressly noted above are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 by/for reason of their dependency from/reference to a noted claim that is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, for the reasons given.
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 to 11, 14 to 21, and 23 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 and Step 2A, Prong I:
Claim(s) 1 to 11, 14 to 21, and 23, while (each) reciting a statutory category of invention defined in 35 U.S.C. 101 (a useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter), is/are directed to an abstract idea, which is a judicial exception, the recited abstract idea being that of calculating, based on the acceleration readings captured, an axis independent acceleration value; and generating a set of axis independent acceleration values correlated with different observed speeds of the vehicle, setting a threshold axis independent acceleration value, comparing the calculated axis independent acceleration value to the threshold axis independent acceleration value to determine whether the vehicle is moving and only estimating the speed of the vehicle when it has been determined that the vehicle is moving, generating (or obtaining, in claim 9) a set of fit coefficients for the set of axis independent acceleration values as compared to the observed speeds of the vehicle, using the set of fit coefficients and/or the set of axis independent acceleration values correlated with an observed speed of the vehicle, to estimate the speed of any vehicle, estimating the mileage travelled based on the speed estimated and the time travelled at the speed estimated, dividing acceleration data or values into bands or bins, matching the acceleration data and the location data, and estimating mileage of speed of any vehicle e.g., by performing a computer implemented method for generating a vehicle mileage comprising: controlling at least one accelerometer on-board the vehicle to capture acceleration readings in one or more axes while the vehicle is in motion; calculating, based on the acceleration readings captured, an axis independent acceleration value; and generating a set of axis independent acceleration values correlated with different observed speeds of the vehicle; wherein one or more statistical characteristics of the acceleration readings is used in calculating the axis independent acceleration value; wherein at least minimum and maximum acceleration readings are used in calculating the axis independent acceleration value; further including the step of setting a threshold axis independent acceleration value, with an axis independent acceleration value above the threshold indicating that the vehicle is moving; further including comparing the calculated axis independent acceleration value to the threshold axis independent acceleration value to determine whether the vehicle is moving and only estimating the speed of the vehicle when it has been determined that the vehicle is moving; further including generating a set of fit coefficients for the set of axis independent acceleration values as compared to the observed speeds of the vehicle; further including using the set of fit coefficients and/or the set of axis independent acceleration values correlated with an observed speed of the vehicle, to estimate the speed of any vehicle; further including estimating the mileage travelled based on the speed estimated and the time travelled at the speed estimated; wherein to obtain the fit coefficients, the axis independent acceleration values are correlated with the observed speed data; further including capturing observed speed data using a positioning/location system; wherein the capturing of an observed speed of the vehicle occurs contemporaneously with the capture of the acceleration readings; wherein the acceleration data and/or the axis independent acceleration values are divided into one or more bands or bins for processing optimization; wherein the at least one acceleration sensor captures the maximum acceleration, minimum acceleration and a mean acceleration value on each axis; and implemented on board an in-vehicle mobile telematics device and/or an associated computing device; or an in-vehicle mobile telematics device implementing the method according to claim 1; or a system comprising an in-vehicle mobile telematics device and a central server implementing the method according to claim 1 and transmitting the set of axis independent acceleration values correlated with an observed speed of the vehicle or a set of fit coefficients based thereon, to the in-vehicle mobile telematics device; further including a location determining device to capture the observed speed of the vehicle; wherein the location determining device is provided in a mobile computing device separate from the in-vehicle mobile telematics device comprising the at least one accelerometer; wherein the location determining device and the mobile computing device are carried in the same vehicle and wherein the in-vehicle mobile telematics device captures acceleration data and the location determining device captures location data independently of one another but contemporaneously to allow matching of the acceleration data and the location data; and wherein the observed speed of the vehicle is captured via the location data and correlated with the acceleration data during a calibration/model building stage and once the calibration/model building stage has been undertaken, the set of axis independent acceleration values correlated with an observed speed of the vehicle, or a set of fit coefficients based thereon is used to estimate mileage.
This abstract idea falls within the grouping(s) of mathematical concepts, mental processes, and/or certain methods of organizing human activity, distilled from case law, because it could be practically performed in the human mind as a mental process and additionally includes mathematical concepts11 (e.g., calculating using e.g., statistical characteristics, generating mathematical sets of values, correlating data, setting thresholds, comparing values, generating fit coefficients, dividing data or values into bands or bins, matching of data, etc.).
Step 2A, Prong II and Step 2B:
Additionally, applying a preponderance of the evidence standard, the abstract idea is not integrated (e.g., at Step 2A, Prong II) by the recitation of additional elements/limitations into a practical application (using the considerations set forth in MPEP §§ 2106.04(a)-(h)) because merely using a computer (claim 1, etc.) as a tool to perform an abstract idea or adding the words "apply it" is not integrating the idea into a practical application of the idea, and e.g., looking at the claim as a whole and considering any additional elements/limitations individually and in combination, no (additional) particular machine, transformation, improvement to the functioning of a computer or an existing technological process or technical field, or meaningful application of the idea, beyond generally linking the idea to a technological environment (e.g., "implementation via computers", Alice; including implementation by the in-vehicle mobile telematics device and/or the central server) or adding insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., controlling accelerometers to capture acceleration readings on one or more axes while a vehicle is in motion, capturing data with conventionally used sensors such as accelerometers, positioning/location systems, location determining devices, etc.), is recited in or encompassed by the claims. Therefore, the claim is not integrated into a practical application and is thus "directed to" the exception.
Moreover, applying a preponderance of the evidence standard, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements/limitations/steps (e.g., at Step 2B) that are, individually or in ordered combination, sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the elements/limitations/steps are recited at a high level of generality (e.g., capturing the data or observing vehicle speed, including capturing acceleration readings on one or more axes while a vehicle is in motion) used in the method, device, or system, etc.) so as to not favor eligibility (MPEP § 2106.05(d)) and/or are used e.g., for data/information gathering only (e.g., capturing the data or observing the vehicle speed, even while the vehicle is in motion) or for other activities that were well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the industry (e.g., vehicles having telematics devices capturing acceleration data, e.g., using a 3-axis accelerometer, while the vehicle is in motion), for example as indicated in applicant's specification at published paragraphs [0002] to [0016] of the specification and as further described in the 2014 IEEE article entitled “Insurance Telematics: Opportunities and Challenges with the Smartphone Solution”, the 2015 WPA article entitled, “Driving Behavior Analysis for Smartphone-based Insurance Telematics”, and the 2015 Procedia Engineering article entitled, “Telematics System in Usage Based Motor Insurance”, cited herewith and describing well-understood, routine, conventional activity, and moreover, the generically recited computer elements (e.g., the “computer” for implementation, an in-vehicle mobile telematics device, a central server, etc.; see e.g., Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d. 1350, 112 USPQ2d 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2014); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 115 USPQ2d 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1321, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1362; Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-1355, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016) do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because their use would be routine (and conventional) in any computer implementation of the idea.
See also, for example only, Footnote 18 in Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978), where the Court held:
“[Appellant] claim[s] that his mathematical algorithm, when related to a computer program, will improve the existing process for updating alarm units. Very simply, our holding today is that a claim for an improved method of calculation, even when tied to a specific end use, is unpatentable subject matter under § 101.”
Even if applicant claims an “improved method of calculation” for e.g., the axis independent acceleration values and for generating mathematical sets of those values correlated with one or more observed vehicle speeds, wherein the mathematical sets or (calculated) fit coefficients based thereon can be used (as an end use) e.g., for estimating vehicle mileage or the speed of any vehicle, this is unpatentable subject matter under § 101. Moreover, an improved abstract idea is still an ineligible abstract idea. See Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("a *new* abstract idea is still an abstract idea") (emphasis in original). Even if the steps are groundbreaking, innovative, or brilliant, the improvement is to the abstract idea rather than to computers or technology. See Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591 (2013); accord SAP Am., 898 F.3d at 1163 (“No matter how much of an advance in the finance field the claims recite, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausibly alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of that nature is ineligible for patenting.”)
See also Myriad, 569 U.S. at 591, 106 USPQ2d at 1979 ("Groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant discovery does not by itself satisfy the §101 inquiry.")
In this respect, regarding Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2017), applicant’s claims are apparently not directed to “us[ing] inertial sensors in a non-conventional manner to reduce errors in measuring the relative position and orientation of a moving object on a moving reference frame” or to any other technical improvements. Id. at 1348-49. To the contrary, applicant’s claims are apparently directed to a new (even possibly improved) abstract idea using a conventional (and fully conventionally implemented in a vehicle12) accelerometer.13
Moreover, limiting or linking the use of the idea to a particular technological environment (e.g., a method performed while the vehicle is in motion and including capturing acceleration or speed data, a vehicle system or system including an in-vehicle mobile telematics device) is not enough to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention (Flook[14]) e.g., because the preemptive effect of the claims on the idea within the field of use would be broad.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1 to 5, 7, 8, 14 to 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iizuka et al. (Japan, 2009-109264; EPO machine translation attached) in view of Rogers et al. (“Accelerometer Data Analysis and Presentation Techniques”, September 1997, NASA Technical Memorandum TM-113173, 46 pages).
Iizuka et al. (JP, ‘264) reveals:
per claim 1, a computer implemented method [e.g., the method for distance detection by which the distance signal c is obtained in order to correct the position information detected by the performed in the respective Embodiments by the vehicle distance detection device (20, 50, etc.) of FIGS. 4, 8, etc. installed in the in-vehicle unit equipped with a GPS receiver] for generating a vehicle mileage [e.g., the distance signal c indicating the distance traveled] comprising:
controlling at least one accelerometer [e.g., 21, 51, etc.] on-board the vehicle to capture acceleration readings in one or more axes [e.g., the X-axis direction, the Y-axis direction, and the Z-axis direction, in paragraphs [0041], [0073], etc.] while the vehicle is in motion;
calculating, based on the acceleration readings captured, an axis independent acceleration value [e.g., by determining (e.g., at 23, 53) the intensity value of the acceleration signal (da), where this determination involves “summing the accelerations in the X, Y, and Z axes, calculating the average value of the acceleration signal da, and calculating the RMS value of the acceleration signal da” (e.g., paragraph [0042]; see also paragraph [0076])]; and
generating a set of axis independent acceleration values [e.g., intensity values of the acceleration, sets of which are shown in FIG. 5 (at the rms traces), with the set in FIG. 5(a) being correlated with a zero (idling) vehicle speed, and the set in FIG. 5(b) being correlated with non-zero vehicle speeds] correlated with different observed speeds of the vehicle [e.g., the summed (of the three acceleration directions), averaged, and rms acceleration signal, that becomes the “intensity value” of the vehicle acceleration, and which is compared to the threshold sh as in FIG. 5, in order to determine whether the vehicle is idling (e.g., not driving) as in FIG. 5(a) or driving as in FIG. 5(b), where the determined idling set of intensity values is correlated with one observed speed (the speed signal b is forcibly set to zero, paragraphs [0045], [0046], etc., and the distance signal c is not increased, e.g., as shown in FIG. 3) and the determined driving is correlated with other observed speeds, e.g., other speeds obtained by the integration processing unit 26 integrating the acceleration signal da (paragraphs [0044], etc.) to obtain the estimated vehicle speed];
While the examiner believes that Iizuka et al. (JP, ‘264) fairly anticipates or renders obvious applicant’s claim even without further teaching, as set forth above, it may be alleged that Iizuka et al. (JP, ‘264) does not expressly reveal that his acceleration sensor(s) are “accelerometers”, or the exact mathematical/formulaic manner in which the intensity signal would be calculated based on the teachings of Iizuka et al. (JP, ‘264), although the examiner understands that these would have been patently obvious to one having ordinary skill in this art, even without further teaching, from the teachings of Iizuka et al. (JP, ‘264) himself.
However in the field of improved accelerometer data analysis used in space vehicle travel[15], Rogers et al. (NASA TM-113173) teaches that the triaxial sensor head (TSH) of the Space Acceleration Measurement System (SAMS) is an accelerometer, and she teaches at pages 5, 6, etc. that a summed average or RMS acceleration of the vehicle/orbiter as sensed by the (3-axis) accelerometer may be determined over a number of time series intervals k using the equation:
a
c
c
e
l
a
v
g
k
=
x
a
v
g
k
2
+
y
a
v
g
k
2
+
z
a
v
g
k
2
where (in one example)
x
a
v
g
k
=
1
M
∑
i
=
1
M
x
k
-
1
M
+
1
k
=
1,2
,
…
,
N
M
and corresponding expressions are used for obtaining the y- and z-axis acceleration data. Interval Root-Mean-Square Acceleration versus time may also be obtained as described at page 6.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement or modify the Iizuka et al. (JP, ‘264) distance detection apparatus for a vehicle so that the acceleration sensors (e.g., 21, 51) capable of measuring acceleration in X-, Y-, and Z- directions would have been conveniently implements as triaxial accelerometers, as taught by Rogers et al. (NASA TM-113173), and so that, in order to obtain the axis independent “intensity value” following the express suggestions of Iizuka et al. (JP, ‘264) that the determination should involve summing16 the accelerations in the X, Y, and Z axes, calculating the average value of the acceleration signal da, and calculating the RMS value of the acceleration signal da at paragraphs [0042] and [0076], the equations provided by Rogers et al. (NASA TM-113173) would have been conveniently utilized in order to arrive at
a
c
c
e
l
a
v
g
k
(as the intensity value), in order to use well-known and conventional mathematical operations/calculations to determine the intensity, with a reasonable expectation of success, and e.g., as a use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
As such, the implemented or modified Iizuka et al. (JP, ‘264) distance detection apparatus for a vehicle would have rendered obvious:
per claim 1, a computer implemented method [e.g., in Iizuka et al. (JP, ‘264), the method for distance detection by which the distance signal c is obtained in order to correct the position information detected by the performed in the respective Embodiments by the vehicle distance detection device (20, 50, etc.) of FIGS. 4, 8, etc. installed in the in-vehicle unit equipped with a GPS receiver] for generating a vehicle mileage [e.g., in Iizuka et al. (JP, ‘264), the distance signal c indicating the distance traveled] comprising:
controlling at least one accelerometer [e.g., in Iizuka et al. (JP, ‘264), 21, 51, etc.; and the accelerometer (title) implemented by the triaxial sensor head (TSH) in Rogers et al. (NASA TM-113173)] on-board the vehicle to capture acceleration readings in one or more axes [e.g., in Iizuka et al. (JP, ‘264), the X-axis direction, the Y-axis direction, and the Z-axis direction, in paragraphs [0041], [0073], etc.] while the vehicle is in motion;
calculating, based on the acceleration readings captured, an axis independent acceleration value [e.g., in Rogers et al. (NASA TM-113173), calculating
a
c
c
e
l
a
v
g
k
as taught at pages 5, 6, etc. as the intensity value in Iizuka et al. (JP, ‘264); and in Iizuka et al. (JP, ‘264), by determining (e.g., at 23, 53) the intensity value of the acceleration signal (da), where this determination involves “summing the accelerations in the X, Y, and Z axes, calculating the average value of the acceleration signal da, and calculating the RMS value of the acceleration signal da” (e.g., paragraph [0042]; see also paragraph [0076])]; and
generating a set of axis independent acceleration values [e.g., in Iizuka et al. (JP, ‘264), intensity values of the acceleration, sets of which are shown in FIG. 5 (at the rms traces), with the set in FIG. 5(a) being correlated with a zero (idling) vehicle speed, and the set in FIG. 5(b) being correlated with non-zero vehicle speeds; wherein the set would have obviously been calculated in the manner taught by Rogers et al. (NASA TM-113173) e.g., at pages 5, 6, etc.] correlated with different observed speeds of the vehicle [e.g., in Iizuka et al. (JP, ‘264), the summed (of the three acceleration directions), averaged, and rms acceleration signal, that becomes the “intensity value” of the vehicle acceleration, and which is compared to the threshold sh as in FIG. 5, in order to determine whether the vehicle is idling (e.g., not driving) as in FIG. 5(a) or driving as in FIG. 5(b), where the determined idling set of intensity values is correlated with one observed speed (the speed signal b is forcibly set to zero, paragraphs [0045], [0046], etc., and the distance signal c is not increased, e.g., as shown in FIG. 3) and the determined driving is correlated with other observed speeds, e.g., other speeds obtained by the integration processing unit 26 integrating the acceleration signal da (paragraphs [0044], etc.) to obtain the estimated vehicle speed];
per claim 2, depending from claim 1, wherein one or more statistical characteristics of the acceleration readings is used in calculating the axis independent acceleration value [e.g., as taught by both Iizuka et al. (JP, ‘264) and Rogers et al. (NASA TM-113173), by summing, averaging, taking the RMS, etc.];
per claim 3, depending from claim 1, wherein at least minimum and maximum acceleration readings are used in calculating the axis independent acceleration value [e.g., as taught by both Iizuka et al. (JP, ‘264) and Rogers et al. (NASA TM-113173), when of the (three) accelerations in the X-, Y-, and Z- axes/directions, one of those three was obviously a minimum compared to the other two, and one of those three was obviously a minimum compared to the other two];
per claim 4, depending from claim 1, further including the step of setting a threshold axis independent acceleration value [e.g., “sh” in FIG. 5 of Iizuka et al. (JP, ‘264)], with an axis independent acceleration value above the threshold indicating that the vehicle is moving [e.g., as described by Iizuka et al. (JP, ‘264), e.g., in conjunction with FIG. 5(b)];
per claim 5, depending from claim 1, further including comparing the calculated axis independent acceleration value to the threshold axis independent acceleration value to determine whether the vehicle is moving and only estimating the speed of the vehicle when it has been determined that the vehicle is moving [e.g., as taught by Iizuka et al. (JP, ‘264) when the vehicle speed signal b is reset to zero under the condition of FIG. 5(b), so that no additional distance integrates (in the distance signal c; see FIG. 3) from the vehicle speed signal b; see e.g., paragraphs [0046] to [0049] in Iizuka et al. (JP, ‘264)];
per claim 7, depending from claim 1, further including using the set of fit coefficients and/or the set of axis independent acceleration values correlated with an observed speed of the vehicle, to estimate the speed of any vehicle [e.g., to arrive at the vehicle speed signal b in Iizuka et al. (JP, ‘264) that is not forcibly reduced to zero by the speed reset signal R under the condition of FIG. 5(b); and under the condition of FIG. 5(a), to estimate that the vehicle speed is zero];
per claim 8, depending from claim 7, further including estimating the mileage travelled based on the speed estimated and the time travelled at the speed estimated [e.g., in Iizuka et al. (JP, ‘264), in the integration unit (26, 56), by integrating (over time) the vehicle speed signal b to arrive at the distance signal c; e.g., paragraphs [0007], [0044], [0048], [0077], [0085], FIG. 10, etc.];
per claim 14, depending from claim 1, wherein the acceleration data and/or the axis independent acceleration values are divided into one or more bands or bins for processing optimization [e.g., when the intensity value (rms) is below the threshold sh in FIG. 5(a) of Iizuka et al. (JP, ‘264); and when the intensity value (rms) is above the threshold sh in FIG. 5(b) of Iizuka et al. (JP, ‘264)];
per claim 15, depending from claim 1, wherein the at least one acceleration sensor captures the maximum acceleration, minimum acceleration and a mean acceleration value on each axis [e.g., the acceleration sensor (21, 51) in Iizuka et al. (JP, ‘264) obviously captures all levels of acceleration, including maximum values, minimum values, and mean values (e.g., when the acceleration level is constant)];
per claim 16, depending from claim 1, implemented on board an in-vehicle mobile telematics device [e.g., the “in-vehicle unit equipped with a GPS receiver” in which the distance detection device 20 is installed, in Iizuka et al. (JP, ‘264)] and/or an associated computing device;
per claim 17, an in-vehicle mobile telematics device [e.g., the “in-vehicle unit equipped with a GPS receiver” in which the distance detection device 20 is installed, in Iizuka et al. (JP, ‘264)] implementing the method according to claim 1;
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iizuka et al. (Japan, 2009-109264; EPO machine translation attached) in view of Rogers et al. (“Accelerometer Data Analysis and Presentation Techniques”, September 1997, NASA Technical Memorandum TM-113173, 46 pages) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Furuta et al. (2002/0049630).
Iizuka et al. (JP, ‘264) as implemented or modified in view of Rogers et al. (NASA TM-113173) has been described above.
The implemented or modified Iizuka et al. (JP, ‘264) distance detection apparatus for a vehicle, which he suggests at paragraph [0002] would be used with an automated toll collection system, may not reveal that an observed vehicle speed is captured using a positioning/location system, or that the apparatus (which is installed in in an in-vehicle unit equipped with a GPS receiver) would be used in combination with a server to perform the method e.g., of claim 1.
However, in the context/field of an improved charging system for toll roads, Furuta et al. (‘630) teaches at paragraphs [0039], [0043], step P5 in FIG. 4, etc. that, “[o]n the basis of the information sent from the GPS satellites (941), the CPU [in the GPS information processing ECU 920] generates information (latitude, longitude, altitude) expressing the position of one's own vehicle, and computes the advancing direction and the advancing speed of one's own vehicle on the basis of the progress over time of the position information”, in order to establish the charge area (region) and charge for the vehicle, and further teaches at paragraphs [0066], etc. that stations (including the reporting station 930), obviously acting as “servers” for the vehicles in the system, provide charge tables and collect fees (e.g., paragraphs [0048], [0086], etc.) in accordance with the traveled distance, the moving history, etc. of the vehicle.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement or further modify the Iizuka et al. (JP, ‘264) distance detection apparatus for a vehicle so that, in the context of use with an automated toll collection system as suggested by Iizuka et al. (JP, ‘264) himself at paragraphs [0002]ff, the advancing direction and the advancing speed of one's own vehicle would have been computed on the basis of the progress over time of the vehicle’s GPS position information, as taught by Furuta et al. (‘630), in order to compute the advancing speed of the vehicle and obtain charge region information (e.g., paragraph [0041], etc.) for the vehicle, e.g., as using/substituting a well-known and conventional method of calculating vehicle speed (MPEP 2144.06, II.), in order to allow the vehicle to be charged automatically for use of toll roads and to estimate its speed, as taught by Furuta et al. (‘630), with a reasonable expectation of success, and e.g., as a use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
As such, the implemented or further modified Iizuka et al. (JP, ‘264) distance detection apparatus for a vehicle would have rendered obvious:
per claim 10, depending from claim 1, further including capturing observed speed data using a positioning/location system [e.g., in Furuta et al. (‘630), paragraphs [0039], [0043], step P5 in FIG. 4, etc.];
per claim 11, depending from claim 10, wherein the capturing of an observed speed of the vehicle occurs contemporaneously with the capture of the acceleration readings [e.g., as would have been obvious from the teachings of Iizuka et al. (JP, ‘264) when the intensity value of the acceleration readings was used to correct the position information detected by the GPS receiver (e.g., paragraphs [0044], etc., and the vehicle speed was determined from the progress over time of the GPS position information, as taught by Furuta et al. (‘630)];
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iizuka et al. (Japan, 2009-109264; EPO machine translation attached) in view of Rogers et al. (“Accelerometer Data Analysis and Presentation Techniques”, September 1997, NASA Technical Memorandum TM-113173, 46 pages) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Grokop (2015/0233718).
Iizuka et al. (JP, ‘264) as implemented or modified in view of Rogers et al. (NASA TM-113173) has been described above.
The implemented or modified Iizuka et al. (JP, ‘264) distance detection apparatus for a vehicle may not reveal the use of the central server, although the examiner understands that using any available computing resource (e.g., on-board the vehicle or remote from the vehicle) to perform the distance detection processing would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, in the context of conventional wirelessly “connected vehicles”, even without further teaching.
However, in the context/field of improved systems and methods for estimating movement of a vehicle, Grokop (‘718) teaches in conjunction with FIG. 22 that a server 2203, being a general purpose computer, may be provided for performing computations for a telematics software program, including storing accelerometer data from the mobile device 2201 provided with the accelerometer, calculating statistics, computing device usage delimiters, estimating gravity vectors, computing nullspaces, projecting accelerometer data onto the nullspaces, and correlating accelerometer data with GPS data to infer movements of a vehicle.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement or further modify the Iizuka et al. (JP, ‘264) distance detection apparatus for a vehicle so that the computations for the distance detection algorithm(s) in Iizuka et al. (JP, ‘264) would have been performed at a server, as taught at 2203 by Grokop (‘718), that was wirelessly connected to the vehicle/in-vehicle unit and received accelerometer signals (a, da) therefrom, as taught by Grokop (‘718), in order to perform the computations for distance detection for the vehicle remotely, with a reasonable expectation of success, and e.g., as a use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
As such, the implemented or further modified Iizuka et al. (JP, ‘264) distance detection apparatus for a vehicle would have rendered obvious:
per claim 18, a system comprising an in-vehicle mobile telematics device [e.g., the in-vehicle unit equipped with a GPS receiver at paragraph [0039] in Iizuka et al. (JP, ‘264)] and a central server [e.g., the server 2203 in FIG. 22 of Grokop (‘718)] implementing the method according to claim 1 [e.g., as mapped above] and transmitting the set of axis independent acceleration values correlated with an observed speed of the vehicle [e.g., transmitting as computations for distance detection the intensity values of the acceleration signal and/or the distance signal c, as taught by Grokop (‘718), in order to perform dead reckoning and/or GPS position correction for the GPS receiver] or a set of fit coefficients based thereon, to the in-vehicle mobile telematics device [e.g., as taught by the computations in Grokop (‘718) and his FIG. 22, in order to perform dead reckoning and/or GPS position correction for the GPS receiver in the in-vehicle unit of Iizuka et al. (JP, ‘264)];
Claims 19 to 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iizuka et al. (Japan, 2009-109264; EPO machine translation attached) in view of Rogers et al. (“Accelerometer Data Analysis and Presentation Techniques”, September 1997, NASA Technical Memorandum TM-113173, 46 pages) and Grokop (2015/0233718) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Furuta et al. (2002/0049630).
Iizuka et al. (JP, ‘264) as implemented or modified in view of Rogers et al. (NASA TM-113173) and Grokop (‘718) has been described above.
The implemented or modified Iizuka et al. (JP, ‘264) distance detection apparatus for a vehicle, which he suggests at paragraph [0002] would be used with an automated toll collection system, may not reveal that an observed vehicle speed is captured using a location determining device.
However, in the context/field of an improved charging system for toll roads, Furuta et al. (‘630) teaches ap paragraphs [0039], [0043], step P5 in FIG. 4, etc. that, “[o]n the basis of the information sent from the GPS satellites (941), the CPU [in the GPS information processing ECU 920] generates information (latitude, longitude, altitude) expressing the position of one's own vehicle, and computes the advancing direction and the advancing speed of one's own vehicle on the basis of the progress over time of the position information”, in order to establish the charge area (region) and charge for the vehicle, and further teaches at paragraphs [0066], etc. that stations (including the reporting station 930), obviously acting as “servers” for the vehicles in the system, provide charge tables and collect fees (e.g., paragraphs [0048], [0086], etc.) in accordance with the traveled distance, the moving history, etc. of the vehicle.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement or further modify the Iizuka et al. (JP, ‘264) distance detection apparatus for a vehicle so that, in the context of use with an automated toll collection system as suggested by Iizuka et al. (JP, ‘264) himself at paragraphs [0002]ff, the advancing direction and the advancing speed of one's own vehicle would have been computed on the basis of the progress over time of the vehicle’s GPS position information, as taught by Furuta et al. (‘630), in order to compute the advancing speed of the vehicle and obtain charge region information (e.g., paragraph [0041], etc.) for the vehicle, e.g., as using/substituting a well-known and conventional method of calculating vehicle speed (MPEP 2144.06, II.), in order to allow the vehicle to be charged automatically for use of toll roads and to estimate its speed, as taught by Furuta et al. (‘630), with a reasonable expectation of success, and e.g., as a use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
As such, the implemented or further modified Iizuka et al. (JP, ‘264) distance detection apparatus for a vehicle would have rendered obvious:
per claim 19, depending from claim 18, further including a location determining device to capture the observed speed of the vehicle [e.g., in Furuta et al. (‘630), paragraphs [0039], [0043], step P5 in FIG. 4, etc.];
per claim 20, depending from claim 19, wherein the location determining device is provided in a mobile computing device separate from the in-vehicle mobile telematics device comprising the at least one accelerometer [e.g., in the GPS receiver of Iizuka et al. (JP, ‘264) and as described in Furuta et al. (‘630), paragraphs [0039], [0043], step P5 in FIG. 4, etc.];
per claim 21, depending from claim 20, wherein the location determining device and the mobile computing device are carried in the same vehicle [e.g., as taught by both Iizuka et al. (JP, ‘264) and Furuta (‘630)] and wherein the in-vehicle mobile telematics device captures acceleration data [e.g., via the acceleration sensor 21, 51 in Iizuka et al. (JP, ‘264)] and the location determining device captures location data [e.g., via the well-known and conventional GPS receiver in Iizuka et al. (JP, ‘264)] independently of one another but contemporaneously to allow matching of the acceleration data and the location data [e.g., in Iizuka et al. (JP, ‘264), in order that the distance signal c obtained from the acceleration data (a, da) is used to correct the position information detected by the GPS receiver; e.g., paragraphs [0044], [0077], etc.];
per claim 23, depending from claim 21, wherein the observed speed of the vehicle is captured via the location data [e.g., as taught by Furuta et al. (‘630)] and correlated with the acceleration data during a calibration/model building stage [e.g., to obviously determine the threshold sh in Iizuka et al. (JP, ‘264), so that base models such as shown in FIGS. 5(a) and 5(b) for idling and driving could be developed] and once the calibration/model building stage has been undertaken, the set of axis independent acceleration values correlated with an observed speed of the vehicle [e.g., the intensity values of the acceleration signal as taught by Iizuka et al. (JP, ‘264)], or a set of fit coefficients based thereon is used to estimate mileage [e.g., the distance signal c in Iizuka et al. (JP, ‘264)];
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
For example only, Hoshizaki (US 2010/0312473 A1) apparently reveals the calculation of an axis independent acceleration value at step 104 in FIG. 11 by using the following equation, reproduced below/on the next page by the examiner:
PNG
media_image1.png
184
662
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David A Testardi whose telephone number is (571)270-3528. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, 8:30am - 5:30pm E.T., and Friday, 8:30 am - 12:30 pm E.T.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached at (571) 272-4896. 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.
/DAVID A TESTARDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
1 Quoting the MPEP, “If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Shoes by Firebug LLC v. Stride Rite Children’s Grp., LLC, 962 F.3d 1362, 2020 USPQ2d 10701 (Fed. Cir. 2020)”.
2 See the 2019 35 U.S.C. 112 Compliance Federal Register Notice (Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 4, Monday, January 7, 2019, pages 57 to 63). See also http://ptoweb.uspto.gov/patents/exTrain/documents/2019-112-guidance-initiative.pptx . Quoting the FR Notice at pages 61 and 62, "The Federal Circuit emphasized that ‘‘[t]he written description requirement is not met if the specification merely describes a ‘desired result.’ ’’ Vasudevan, 782 F.3d at 682 (quoting Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1349). . . . When examining computer-implemented, software-related claims, examiners should determine whether the specification discloses the computer and the algorithm(s) that achieve the claimed function in sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing. An algorithm is defined, for example, as 'a finite sequence of steps for solving a logical or mathematical problem or performing a task.' Microsoft Computer Dictionary (5th ed., 2002). Applicant may 'express that algorithm in any understandable terms including as a mathematical formula, in prose, or as a flow chart, or in any other manner that provides sufficient structure.' Finisar, 523 F.3d at 1340 (internal citation omitted). It is not enough that one skilled in the art could theoretically write a program to achieve the claimed function, rather the specification itself must explain how the claimed function is achieved to demonstrate that the applicant had possession of it. See, e.g., Vasudevan, 782 F.3d at 682–83. If the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm(s) in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention that achieves the claimed result, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for lack of written description must be made. See MPEP § 2161.01, subsection I."
3 See MPEP 2161.01, I. and LizardTech Inc. v. Earth Resource Mapping Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2005) cited therein ("Whether the flaw in the specification is regarded as a failure to demonstrate that the applicant possessed the full scope of the invention recited in [the claim] or a failure to enable the full breadth of that claim, the specification provides inadequate support for the claim under [§ 112(a)]").
4 By using the sensed acceleration (reading) as a magnitude (scalar) only and not as a vector (with an axial direction) for subsequent calculations/steps.
5 The teaching in paragraphs [0037] and [0076] is confusing as to how the two differing frequencies might be intended to be utilized, wherein the observed speed is also “collected” at published paragraph [0053].
6 While “based thereon” is unclear, the examiner believes this means, “based on the set of independent acceleration values correlated with an observed speed of the vehicle”, in the context of claims 18 and 23,with the “set of independent acceleration values correlated with an observed speed of the vehicle” also being unclear and possibly being different from the set that is correlated with “different observed speeds” (plural) in claim 1.
7 See Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc. (U.S. Supreme Court, 2014) which held, "A patent is invalid for indefiniteness if its claims, read in light of the patent’s specification and prosecution history, fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention." See also In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307 (Fed.Cir.2014)(“[A] claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear,” i.e., “ambiguous, vague, incoherent, opaque, or otherwise unclear in describing and defining the claimed invention.”) and Ex Parte McAward, Appeal No. 2015-006416 (PTAB, Aug. 25, 2017, Precedential) (“Applying the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim, then, the Office establishes a prima facie case of indefiniteness with a rejection explaining how the metes and bounds of a pending claim are not clear because the claim contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear.”)
8 See MPEP 2173.03, “The specification should ideally serve as a glossary to the claim terms so that the examiner and the public can clearly ascertain the meaning of the claim terms.”
9 an·y (ĕn′ē) adj.
1. One or some; no matter which: Take any book you want. Do you have any information on ancient Roman architecture?
2.
a. No matter how many or how few; some: Are there any oranges left?
b. No matter how much or how little: Is there any milk left?
3. Every: Any dog likes meat.
. . .
[From: American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2016 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved. Retrieved 8 May 2026.]
10 For example, based on the set of axis independent acceleration values, based on the observed speed of the vehicle, etc.
11 See MPEP 2106.04, II., A., 2., “See, e.g., RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (‘Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract’)”.
12 See paragraphs [0053], [0092], et. of the published specification, and the literature cited herewith.
13 In Thales Visionix, the claimed advance over the prior art related to a new, specific way in which sensors measured inertial changes. See Thales Visionix, 850 F.3d at 1345 (“The inertial sensors disclosed in the ’159 patent do not use the conventional approach of measuring inertial changes with respect to the earth.”). The equations in Thales Visionix were specifically derived from the particular arrangement of the sensors used in the claimed method and system. See id. at 1348 (“Though the unconventional utilization of inertial sensors as specified by the ’159 patent ‘may seem somewhat strange’ to those within the field . . . this combination of sensor placement and calculation based on a different reference frame mitigates errors by eliminating inertial calculations with respect to the earth.” (citation omitted)). The claims sought to protect only the application of physics to the unconventional configuration of sensors as disclosed. See id. at 1347. The claims were not merely directed to the abstract idea of using mathematical equations and concepts, but were directed to systems and methods for use of inertial sensors in a nonconventional manner. See id. at 1348–49. Here, it appears that the instant application does not similarly claim use of accelerometers or acceleration sensors in a nonconventional way or in any special arrangement or unconventional configuration for capturing acceleration readings, since accelerometers/acceleration sensors used e.g., in insurance telematics were apparently well-understood, routine, conventional for measuring vehicle acceleration. Note that even in the WPA ’15 literature, cited herewith, “estimates of the vehicle's speed can be readily derived from the angular velocity and acceleration measured by the IMU” in GNSS-challenged areas (page 22), wherein the IMU “provides measurements of specific force and angular velocity, obtained from a three-axis accelerometer and a three-axis gyroscope, respectively” (page 20).
14 See e.g., Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 ("Flook established that limiting an abstract idea to one field of use . . . did not make the concept patentable.")
15 The examiner merely notes that “STS” in NASA lingo means “Space Transportation System”. It refers to the official program name for the Space Shuttle program, which operated from 1981 to 2011, encompassing the orbiter, boosters, and external tank. Mission STS-65 (page 5) occurred on 8-23 July 1994.
16 For example, vector summing (and not mere mathematical summing) to obviously obtain the vector magnitude of the acceleration, e.g., as the square root of the sum of the squares of the component vectors.
Prosecution Insights