DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This Office action is in response to the application filed on 11/18/2024, with claims 1-20 pending.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 2/18/2025 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/965,156 (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites:
A method for prioritized inertial measurement unit (IMU) position tracking, the method comprising:
receiving, by a control device, sensor output for a plurality of inertial measurement unit (IMU) sensors;
generating, by the control device, a measurement vector for output of the plurality of IMU sensors;
selecting, by the control device, sensor output of a first IMU sensor, wherein the sensor output for the first IMU sensor is selected using noise performance of sensor output for the first IMU sensor; and
outputting, by the control device, a measurement vector of the first IMU sensor.
Step 1: Statutory category- Yes
The claim recites an apparatus. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03
Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception - Yes – Mathematical Concept.
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/ or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mathematical concept” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations are a “relationship between variables or numbers”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
The claim recites:
outputting, by the control device, a measurement vector of the first IMU sensor.
The “outputting” limitation, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, is part of a process. For example, but for the “a control device” language, the claim covers a mathematical relationships and/or mathematical calculations. The mere recitation of outputting does not take this claim limitation out of the mathematical concept grouping because the claim language does not positively recite using the outputted vector measurement for tracking.
Thus, claim 1 recites a mathematical concept.
Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application – No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04( d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional elements of:
receiving, by a control device, sensor output for a plurality of inertial measurement unit (IMU) sensors [data gathering—a pre-solution activity];
generating, by the control device, a measurement vector for output of the plurality of IMU sensors [data gathering—a pre-solution activity];
selecting, by the control device, sensor output of a first IMU sensor, wherein the sensor output for the first IMU sensor is selected using noise performance of sensor output for the first IMU sensor [selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated—pre-solution activity];
These additional elements are merely insignificant extra solution activities. These claims does not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. These additional limitations are no more than mere data gathering.
Accordingly, even in combination, this additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 11. Claim 11 is similar to claim 1; therefore, claim 11 is rejected under the same rationale of claim 1.
Respectively, dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20, as a whole, do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B evaluation: Inventive Concept: - No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, the claim(s) is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in claims 2-10 and 12-20 amount to no more than mere data gathering step, data manipulation, insignificant extra solution activity and/or data output. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., data manipulation and/or data output to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B, MPEP 2106.0S(f).
Thus, these claims are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9-12, 14-17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al., US 2022/0042801 hereinafter “Wang”.
Claims 1 and 11. Wang teaches a method for prioritized inertial measurement unit (IMU) position tracking, the method comprising:
receiving, by a control device, sensor output for a plurality of inertial measurement unit (IMU) sensors ([0060]-[0061] reads on this element as such “According to embodiments, IMU 101 includes a plurality of accelerometers” and [0063] further teaches “receiving inertial measurement data form IMU (e.g. IMU 101, IMU 102, etc.) at block 301”);
generating, by the control device, a measurement vector for output of the plurality of IMU sensors ([0070] reads on this element as such—“ By way of example an independent linear function may be generated for inertial data received from an IMU. It can be shown that the PCA can be accomplished by solving an eigenvalue/eigenvector problem.”);
selecting, by the control device, sensor output of a first IMU sensor, wherein the sensor output for the first IMU sensor is selected using noise performance of sensor output for the first IMU sensor; and
outputting, by the control device, a measurement vector of the first IMU sensor.
Claims 2 and 12. Wang teaches the method of claim 1 and further teaches, wherein the plurality of IMU sensors are each mounted to a first support structure, and wherein the first support structure is a foot wearable structure ([0010] reads on this element as such—“In one embodiment, the inertial data includes gyroscope data for a plurality of axes generated by the inertial measurement unit, and wherein the inertial measurement unit is mounted to a forefoot of a user.”).
Claims 4 and 14. Wang teaches the method of claim 1 and further teaches, wherein the measurement vector includes accelerometer and gyroscope readings along three axes ([0060] with [0068] reads on this element as such—“According to embodiments, IMU 101 may be configured with a sampling rate of 400 Hz. According to embodiments, IMU 101 may be configured to output accelerometer and gyroscopic data for each of an X axis, Y axis, and Z axis. Exemplary data for IMU 101 is shown in FIG. 5…IMU data 500 is received for one or more axes, such as gyroscopic data for each of an X axis, Y axis, and Z axis.”).
Claims 5 and 15. Wang teaches the method of claim 1 and further, wherein the measurement vector includes accelerometer parameters for true acceleration, time-varying biases and noise components and gyroscope parameters for angular velocity, time-varying biases and noise component ([0070] teaches that –“…IMU data at each time step can include 6 data measurements, including 3 from accelerometer data and 3 from gyroscope data.”).
Claims 6 and 16. Wang teaches the method of claim 1 and further teaches, wherein generating the measurement vector error includes aligning measurement vectors of the plurality of IMU sensors to a body frame of the first IMU (Taken together [0062] and [0070] reads on this element as such—“The IMU 201 may include one or more accelerometers, gyroscopes or other inertial measurement sensors. As described herein, IMU 201 may be mounted to a pedestrian or wearer's foot, such as the toe portion of a shoe. Data from IMU 201 and data used and produced in the navigation position estimation by processor 202 may be stored in memory 203. Memory 203 may be a computer readable storage device. Processor 202 is configured to perform one or more determinations and functions, shown as blocks in FIG. 2. By way of example,
processor 202 may be configured to perform a plurality of functions including functions for a floor type detector 205, adapted inertial navigation parameters 213 and position
estimator 215. By way of example an independent linear function may be generated for inertial data received from an IMU. It can be shown that the PCA can be accomplished by solving an eigenvalue/eigenvector problem. In this non-limiting example, 1673 partitions may be collected and labeled with the corresponding floor types: walking on hard floor, walking on grass, walking on sand, walking upstairs, and walking downstairs. The corresponding eigenvalues of the centered data matrix after conducting the Singular Value Decomposition (SYD) are distributed continuously, making obtaining a threshold by observation difficult. Therefore, a validation approach may be used to determine an acceptable output dimension of the PCA.”).
Claims 7 and 17. Wang teaches the method of claim 1 and further teaches, wherein selecting the sensor output of the first IMU sensor is based on full-scale range and noise performance of the IMU sensor for the IMU sensor ([0066] and [0089] reads on this element as such—“FIG. 4 illustrates a graphical representation of navigation estimation. According to embodiments, navigation estimation may base based on a plurality of IMU data points or measurements, shown as IMU data 400. According to embodiments, IMU data is partitioned, principle component analysis (PCA) is performed, floor type may be identified and a multiple mode extended Kalman filter may be used to estimate a navigation result, such as a position, position estimate, and range measurement. FIG. 4 illustrates dividing IMU data 405 into different partitions of length M, with each partition roughly corresponding to a full gait cycle. According to embodiments, length of each partition is fixed, so that they are of the same dimension to facilitate the following steps….are the accelerometer and the gyroscope data at time index k, respectively, is the averaged value of the N consecutive accelerometer data, a and a are related to the white noise level of the accelerometer and the gyroscope,
and g is gravity.”).
Claims 9 and 19. Wang teaches the method of claim 1 and Wang further teaches, wherein outputting the measurement vector includes output of a pedestrian navigation observable including a measurement of at least one of gait, frequency and foot movement ([0068] reads on this element as such—“IMU data 500 is received for one or more axes, such as gyroscopic data for each of an X axis, Y axis, and Z axis. According to one embodiment, IMU data may be first partitioned into different gait cycles as shown in FIG. 5 as 5051-n. One of the most recognizable features in the IMU data is the y-axis gyroscope peak during the toe-off of the foot 5101.n, which was used as the start mark of each partition according to one embodiment. According to an exemplary illustration, the gait frequency in the example of FIG. 5 is approximately 90 steps per minute and the IMU sampling rate is 400 Hz, so length of each partition was set to a fixed value (e.g., 533). The actual length of each gait can vary. For example, there is a gap between the second and third data partitions 5052 and 505,, in FIG. 5 indicating that the second partition 5052 ends before the third partition 505, begins.”).
Claims 10 and 20. Wang teaches the method of claim 1 and further teaches, wherein outputting the measurement vector includes output of accelerometer and gyroscope measurements for a non-walking activity ([0089] describes this element as such—“ during the stance phase, the magnitude of the specific force that the IMU is experiencing is equal to gravity, and the angular rate of the IMU is zero.”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 3, 8, 13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of C. S. Jao and A. M. Shkel, “A Reconstruction Filter for Saturated Accelerometer Signals Due to Insufficient FSR in Foot-Mounted Inertial Navigation System,” in IEEE Sensors Journal, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 695-706, 1 Jan.1, 2022 – hereinafter “Shkel”.
Claims 3 and 13. Wang teaches the method of claim 1; however, Wang is silent on the term full scale range. Yet, Shkel teaches wherein the plurality of IMU sensors includes the first IMU sensor having a first noise performance rating and a first full scale range parameter and a second IMU sensor having a second noise performance rating and a second full scale range parameter, wherein the first noise performance rating and first full scale range parameter are different from the second noise performance rating and the second full scale range parameter (pg. 696, col. 1 and pg. 705, col. 1 and taken together reads on this element as such—“ With high performance IMUs, the saturation indicates that foot-mounted IMU could produce incorrect readings of actual accelerations during the heel-strike phases, which leads to degraded navigation accuracy and needs to be taken into account in pedestrian navigation. The trade-off between sensor's noise performance, full scale range, and Size, Weight, Power, and Cost (SWaP + C) remained to be unresolved challenges in development of sensors for inertial navigation….It can be observed that the step-wise navigation errors using the two different IMUs in the first series of experiments were on a similar level. Although the Analog Device IMU and the VectorNav IMU have different noise performances, the difference was negligible in our opinion and would not lead to a different navigation
accuracy in a pedestrian navigation task of around 120 seconds.”).
Therefore, it would have be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Shkel with the invention of Wang because such a combination provides an approach to reconstruct,
in real-time, accelerometer's measurements that are saturated due to insufficient FSR (see pg. 700, col. 2 of Shkel).
Claims 8 and 18. Wang teaches the method of claim 1; however, Wang is silent on teaching unsaturated measurements. Yet, Shkel teaches wherein selecting the sensor output of the first IMU sensor includes selection of a non-saturated IMU sensor accelerometer measurement (pg. 702, col. 2 –reads on this element as such—“To quantify
the accuracy of reconstructed signals, we considered the raw unsaturated accelerometer's signals as the reference measurements.” While fig. 7 illustrates raw unsaturated accelerometer's signals. Here raw unsaturated accelerometer's signals is equivalent to the claimed a non-saturated IMU sensor accelerometer measurement.).
Therefore, it would have be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Shkel with the invention of Wang because such a combination provides an approach to reconstruct,
in real-time, accelerometer's measurements that are saturated due to insufficient FSR (see pg. 700, col. 2 of Shkel).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANA D THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-8549. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 - 5.
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, Ramya Burgess can be reached at 571-272-6011. 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.
/A.D.T/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/RUSSELL FREJD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661