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 .
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.
Claim 2-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 2-8 is 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. Claim(s) 2, 7 and 8 “recites” abstract ideas under the 2019 PEG: Claims are directed to abstract idea, especially mathematical concepts, including: calculating rotation angles, threshold comparison, vector calculation and inner product determination and mental processes, such as determining an opened or closed state based on calculated values.
Although the claims recite an angular velocity sensor, processor, and memory, these elements merely collect data, perform mathematical calculation on data and output a determination. The sensor functions only as a data source, and the processor and memory perform generic computing functions. Thus, the additional elements merely link the abstract idea to generic hardware and do not impose any meaningful limits on the abstract idea.
Additionally, the claims do not add additional elements that are sufficiently to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, claims 2-8 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: In regards to claim 6, LV in view of Youssef teaches all of the limitations of claim 2-5 as shown below. But, neither LV, Youssef, nor any other prior art of record as a whole teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to calculate a second vector of the second rotation angle at any point to detect that the rotating body is in the closed state in a case where an inner product of the first vector and the second vector is negative.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2-5 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LV et al (US 2020/0219347) in view of Youssef et al (US 2013/0338961).
In regards to claim 2, LV teaches a rotation detection device, comprising (abstract teaches smart lock for a door): an angular velocity sensor attached to a rotating body that rotates and configured to detect an angular velocity of the rotating body (0010-0011, 0041 teaches sensor information may include angular velocity of the door…detected by a gyroscope sensor. 0086 teaches the orientation sensor may determine a door opening action based on angular velocity detected by the gyroscope. 0090 teaches the orientation sensor may determine a door closing action based on angular velocity detected by the gyroscope) ;
a memory configured to store a program; and at least one processor configured to execute the program so as to (0014 and 0028 teaches processing module includes processing circuit configured to process sensor information and control the smart lock. Also see Fig. 1, storage module 150 and processing unit)
calculate a first rotation angle at any point during a rotation operation performed in an opening direction from an origin of a rotation angle and a second rotation angle at any point during a rotation operation performed in a closing direction opposite to the opening direction after the rotation operation in the opening direction is performed (0086 teaches a door opening action may be determined based on angular velocity detected by the gyroscope or an angle processed according to the angular velocity…the door opening action corresponds to an increase in door angle. 0072 teaches door angle is evaluated relative to a closed reference position, and the door is considered closed when the angle is within a define range around that reference. 0090 teaches a door closing may be determined based on angular velocity detected by the gyroscope or the angle processed according to the angular velocity…the door closing action corresponds to a decrease in door angle. 0072 teaches closing corresponds to the door angle returning toward the closed reference range). As mentioned above, LV teaches that a door angle is “processed according to angular velocity” but LV does not explicitly teach how the rotation angle is calculated over time, during opening and closing.
However, in an analogous art, Youssef teaches calculating angular position (abstract). Youssef further in paragraph 0011 teaches the orientation is obtained by integrating the gyrometer measurement. 0019 teaches the orientation or angular position…is determined at each time index…calculated on the basis of angular velocity measurement and the previous orientation. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement LV’s door-angle determination by integrating angular velocity over time to calculate rotation angle, as taught by Youssef, because LV already relies on angular velocity sensing to determine door motion (LV paragraph 0086, 0090), and integrating angular velocity to obtain angular position is a well-known and predictable technique for tracking rotational motion. Applying Youssef’s technique to LV would allow the door lock system to more reliably track cumulative door rotation and return to a closed reference position without spurious angle error, thereby improving the reliability of door state detection prior to lock actuation.
Per claim 3, LV teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to detect that the rotating body is in at least one of an opened state or a closed state based on the first rotation angle, the second rotation angle, and a predetermined threshold (0072 teaches that a door is considered closed when a calculated door angle is within a predetermined angular range around a reference position (-2 to 2 degrees). 0072,0086 teaches determining a door opening action when the calculated door angle moves outside the closed threshold. 0072, 0090 teaches determining a door closing action when the calculated door angle returns towards the closed threshold range).
Per claim 4, LV in view of Youssef teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to store a first vector when a magnitude of the first rotation angle exceeds a first threshold (LV explicitly teach evaluating the magnitude of a rotation angle and detecting when the magnitude exceeds a threshold. For example, LV in paragraph 0072 discloses a door is considered closed when the calculated door angle is within a predetermined angular range around a reference position, and open when the door angle moves outside the range. 0086 teaches determining a door opening action when the calculated door angle exceeds the threshold associated with the closed state. Youssef further teaches representing orientation and rotational state using vector quantities and maintaining such representations for subsequent processing, such as: 0157 teaches representing orientation as a vector-based rotational quantity derived from inertial sensor data. 0019 teaches that orientation/angular position at a time index is calculated using angular velocity measurements and the previous orientation quaternion. and 0220 and 0182 and 0019-20 teaches maintaining and reusing previously determined orientation information during subsequent processing steps). Therefore, before the effective filling date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to store a vector representation of door rotation in the system of LV when the door rotation angle exceeds a threshold, as taught by Youssef, in order to preserve directional and magnitude information associated with the doors’ opening motion. Applying Youssef’s vector retention approach to LV’s threshold-triggered door rotation detection improves the stability and directional consistency of the stored rotation information for later door-state evaluation and control.
Per claim 5, LV teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to detect that the rotating body is in the closed state in a case where a magnitude of the second rotation angle is equal to or less than a second threshold which is the same as or smaller than the first threshold (0090 teaches determining a door closing action based on angular velocity and/or a calculated door angle. 0090 and 0072 further teaches evaluating the door angle as it returns toward the closed reference during closing. 0072 teaches that the door is considered closed when the calculated door angle is within a predetermined angular range around a reference position (-2 to 2 degrees. The same closed-window threshold for closing satisfies “same as or smaller than”).
Per claim 7, see rejection of claim 2 as claim 7 is a method of claim 2.
Per claim 8, see rejection of claim 2.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sundaram et al (US 2019/0220066) paragraph 0026, 0044-0046
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMEED ALIZADA whose telephone number is (571)270-5907. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30 am until 5:30 pm.
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, Brian Zimmerman can be reached at 571-272-3059. 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.
/OMEED ALIZADA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686