DETAILED ACTION
Applicant submitted remarks in response to the latest Office action on 3 June 2026. Therein, Applicant amended claims 1, 10, 12 and 20; Applicant cancelled claims 5 and 16. Applicant did not add any new claims. The submitted claims have been entered and are considered below.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Any pending IDS’s will be reviewed upon the filing of a Request for Continued Examination. The discovery of more satisfactory art obligates the examiner to update the rejection, thus prompting the issuance of a second Non-Final Office action. As examiner wishes to avoid this, review of new art will be performed at the start of a new round of prosecution.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and related arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's amendments and arguments with respect to the rejection of the independent claims pertaining to the element “piecewise” have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserted that the prior art of record could not be reasonably modified to include a piecewise equation because of a teaching away. Examiner does not agree.
The prior art of record does not teach away from the proposed modification. In order to teach away, the reference must expressly prohibit the manner in which the reference is to be modified. In the teaching at hand, Shibata does not expressly exclude the inclusion of a piecewise function. Such a function is known to one of ordinary skill in the art. Additionally, including such a function would require modifications that the person of ordinary skill in the art would have known are needed. This ordinary knowledge would not have required substantial experimentation or trial and error; thus, a reasonable expectation of success is not improperly applied. The rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s amendments and related arguments with respect to the remainder of the independent claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-9 and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0132462) in view of Demerly (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0260517).
For claim 1, Shibata teaches a system comprising: at least one sensor configured to detect attitude data (see para. 0044); one or more processors having a memory and operationally coupled with the at least one sensor (see para. 0024), wherein the one or more processors are configured to: iteratively adjust an offset error present in the attitude data until the attitude data is within one or more predetermined threshold associated with a specification of an application of the system (see paras. 0055, 0058, 0064-0065, 0091; see paras. 0059-0061, threshold A, B used in calibration coefficients that include attitude), wherein each iteration comprises: receiving, from the at least one sensor, the attitude data, wherein the attitude data includes the offset error (see paras. 0053-0054). Shibata does not explicitly disclose the next limitation.
A teaching from Demerly discloses calculate an average, over a predetermined time interval, of the received attitude data (see paras. 0015, 0018-0019, angular velocity is used in the moving average/interval). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify Shibata to include the teachings of Demerly based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to improve a compensation method for a rate sensing device and more particularly to a method and system for bias offset and compensation for angular and linear inertial sensors primarily in automotive vehicles (see para. 0001).
Continuing with the claim, as Demerly discloses the calculated average, the combination of Shibata and Demerly disclose determining a plurality of calibration coefficients based at least on the calculated average of the received attitude data using an equation (see Shibata, paras. 0058-0059, 0070); applying the determined plurality of calibration coefficients on the received attitude data (see para. 0058); and, adjusting the offset error present in the attitude data based at least on the application of the plurality of calibration coefficients (see paras. 0055-0064) until the attitude data is within one or more threshold (see paras. 0055, error norms become minimum based on calibration coefficients selected and associated thresholds).
Shibata does not explicitly disclose the use of a piecewise linear equation. However, Shibata uses measured values which are raw outputs of the gyro sensors and are proximate to a linear equation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify Shibata to include a piecewise linear equation based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to improve whether the output of the attitude sensor can be calibrated by using such information that can be obtained by the vehicle (see para. 0022).
With reference to claim 2, Shibata further teaches wherein the attitude data comprises at least one of an angular rate, an acceleration, and an inclination of a vehicle (see para. 0044), wherein the attitude data is configured to calculate roll/pitch/yaw (RPY) values to adjust the offset error in the attitude data (see para. 0044).
Regarding claim 3, Shibata does not explicitly disclose at least one user command that resets, specifies or adds to the calibration coefficients. However, resetting a system is known to be a necessary option in calibrating functions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify Shibata with a user function to reset the coefficients to zero based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to improve whether the output of the attitude sensor can be calibrated by using such information that can be obtained by the vehicle.
With regards to claim 4, Shibata does not explicitly disclose a user command that resets coefficients to zero. However, resetting a system is known to be a necessary option in calibrating functions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify Shibata with a user function to reset the coefficients to zero based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to improve whether the output of the attitude sensor can be calibrated by using such information that can be obtained by the vehicle.
Regarding claim 5, Shibata does not explicitly disclose a user command that replaces the coefficients. However, user-customizing coefficients in a system is known to be a necessary option in calibrating functions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify Shibata with a user function to insert specific coefficients to user-defined values based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to improve whether the output of the attitude sensor can be calibrated by using such information that can be obtained by the vehicle.
Pertaining to claim 6, Shibata does not explicitly disclose a user command that updates the coefficients. However, user-customized updating of coefficients in a system is known to be a necessary option in calibrating functions.
For claims 7 and 8, Shibata does not explicitly disclose the claimed modes. However, user-selectable modes for detecting attitude data and calibrating the attitude data are considered well known to one of ordinary skill in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify Shibata with a user selectable functions of data recording and calibrating values based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to improve whether the output of the attitude sensor can be calibrated by using such information that can be obtained by the vehicle.
With reference to claim 9, Shibata further teaches wherein the at least one sensor comprises a 3-axis gyroscope or a 3-axis accelerometer (see para. 0039).
Regarding claim 11, Shibata does not explicitly teach a TARS device. However, Shibata teaches that the attitude sensor is mounted to the vehicle (see abstract). Official Notice is taken that a TARS device may be mounted to a vehicle. Additionally, a TARS device mounted in a vehicle is considered to be well known to one of ordinary skill in the art (see Honeywell disclosure, “TRANSPORTATION ATTITUDE REFERENCE SENSOR IN CONSTRUCTION IMPLEMENTS”, dated 2017 (see attached)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify Shibata with a TARS device on the vehicle based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to improve whether the output of the attitude sensor can be calibrated by using such information that can be obtained by the vehicle.
Claim 12 contains similar elements to and largely mirrors the subject matter of claim 1. Accordingly, claim 12 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning outlined above for claim 1.
Claim 13 contains similar elements to and largely mirrors the subject matter of claim 2. Accordingly, claim 13 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning outlined above for claim 2.
Claim 14 contains similar elements to and largely mirrors the subject matter of claim 3. Accordingly, claim 14 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning outlined above for claim 3.
Claim 15 contains similar elements to and largely mirrors the subject matter of claim 4. Accordingly, claim 15 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning outlined above for claim 4.
Claim 16 contains similar elements to and largely mirrors the subject matter of claim 5. Accordingly, claim 16 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning outlined above for claim 5.
Claim 17 contains similar elements to and largely mirrors the subject matter of claim 6. Accordingly, claim 17 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning outlined above for claim 6.
Claim 18 contains similar elements to and largely mirrors the subject matter of claim 7. Accordingly, claim 18 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning outlined above for claim 7.
Claim 19 contains similar elements to and largely mirrors the subject matter of claim 8. Accordingly, claim 19 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning outlined above for claim 8.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Examiner previously stated at the end of the previous rejection that Applicant is considered to have implicit knowledge of the entire disclosure once a reference has been cited. The cited figures, columns and lines should not be considered the only relevant teachings. The entire reference must be taken as a whole. This includes any teachings within the reference that were not explicitly cited in the previous Office action. Any new citation of additional teachings of the previously cited art is not a new ground of rejection. Taking the references as a whole, the art supports the new rejection of the currently amended claims.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM D TISSOT whose telephone number is (571)270-3439. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at (571) 272-1206. 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.
/ADAM D TISSOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights