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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 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:
A calculator in claim 1 (and dependent claims).
A detector in claim 1 (and dependent claims).
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.
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.
Step 1 Analysis: Claims 1-2, 14 recites a system or a medium, which is a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One Analysis: Claims 1/15 recites an abstract idea of mental processes. The steps of “calculates a posture change”, “detects the gradient change”, “detects that the moving body is undergoing the posture change” and “detects that the posture change […] is completed” are recited at a high level of generality such that these steps could be practically performed in the human mind, with or without using a computer. See MPEP section 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Regarding the limitations of “calculates a posture change”, “detects the gradient change”, “detects that the moving body is undergoing the posture change”, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this concept covers performance of the limitation in the mind as observations, evaluations, judgements, and/or opinions but for generic computer components. A person, by observing/evaluating the vehicle and with the use of a physical aid or a generic computer can determine if an angle of a vehicle as shown in Fig. 4A, where ultimately it is just a basic angle determination.
Regarding the limitations of “detects that the posture change […] is completed”, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this concept covers performance of the limitation in the mind as observations, evaluations, judgements, and/or opinions but for generic computer components. A person, by observing/evaluating the vehicle and with the use of a physical aid or a generic computer can determine that the vehicle is no longer at an angle.
Step 2A, Prong Two Analysis: Claim 1 recites the additional elements of “a gyro sensor”. Regarding the limitations “a gyro sensor”, the limitations amount to no more than merely using a sensor as a tool to perform the abstract idea of data gathering. The claim recites the steps of detecting. In other words, the claim recites obtaining data. This is similar to other concepts that have been identified as abstract by the courts, such as store and transmit information in Cyberfone, or comparing new and stored information and using rules to identify options in SmartGene. The courts have found mathematical algorithms to be abstract ideas (e.g., a mathematical procedure for converting one form of numerical representation to another in Benson, or an algorithm for calculating parameters indicating an abnormal condition in Grams). The claim recites detecting an angular velocity value and performing calculations to determine other values. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: Claim 1 recites the additional elements of “a gyro sensor”. Regarding the limitations “a gyro sensor”, the limitations amount to no more than the limitations amount to no more than merely using a sensor as a tool to obtain data for an abstract idea. The claim does not have any elements that amount to significantly more than the exception. No other specific hardware is recited. The use with a moving body are simply a field of use that is an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, so do not add significantly more. Claim 2 recites the additional elements of “a vehicle”, which merely identifies the moving body that can be observed a person, and does not add significantly more. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. Moreover, these additional elements do not reflect an improvement to a technology or technical field, or include the use of a particular machine or particular transformation since the calculation is not applied to any application (Examiner notes claim 3 does include significantly more and an application of the calculation). The additional elements, taken individually and in an ordered combination, do not result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). See MPEP section 2106.05.
Double Patenting
Claims 1-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 12223861. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current claims are effectively broader than claim 1 of 12223861. Claim 1 is mapped below, independent claim 14 has the same fundamental limitations and is mapped similarly.
19/002128
12223861
1. A detection system for detecting a state of a posture change of a moving body due to a gradient change of a traveling path, the detection system comprising:
1. A display system comprising: a display processing device that controls display of an image based on a reference position and a correction amount;
a gyro sensor that detects an angular velocity in a rotation direction about a left-right direction with respect to a traveling direction of the moving body;
a gyro sensor that detects an angular velocity in a rotation direction about a left-right direction with respect to a traveling direction of a moving body;
a calculator that calculates a posture change amount as an angle amount based on the angular velocity detected by the gyro sensor;
a displacement amount calculator that calculates a posture change amount as an angle amount based on the angular velocity detected by the gyro sensor;
a correction processing device including a correction amount calculator that calculates a correction amount of a display position of the image based on the posture change amount;
and a detector that detects the gradient change of the traveling path based on a variation amount in unit time of the posture change amount, wherein
and a gradient change detector that detects a change in a gradient of a traveling path based on a variation amount in predetermined unit time of the posture change amount, wherein
the detector detects that the moving body is undergoing the posture change due to the gradient change of the traveling path by detecting that an absolute value of the variation amount is larger than a first threshold value,
the gradient change detector detects that the moving body is undergoing a posture change due to a gradient change of the traveling path by detecting that an absolute value of the variation amount is larger than a predetermined first threshold value,
the detector detects that the posture change of the moving body due to the gradient change is completed by detecting that the absolute value of the variation amount is equal to or less than a second threshold value smaller than the first threshold value during the posture change of the moving body due to the gradient change of the traveling path.
the gradient change detector detects that a posture change due to a gradient change of the traveling path is completed by detecting that an absolute value of the variation amount is equal to or less than a predetermined second threshold value during the posture change due to the gradient change of the traveling path,
the correction processing device reduces the correction amount based on a result of the gradient change detector detecting that the moving body is undergoing a posture change due to a gradient change of the traveling path,
the second threshold value is smaller than the first threshold value.
2. The detection system according to claim 1, wherein the moving body is a vehicle.
11. The display system according to claim 1, wherein the moving body is a vehicle, and the image is a virtual image displayed in front of a windshield of the vehicle.
3. A display system comprising: the detection system according to claim 1;a display processing device that controls display of an image based on a reference position and a correction amount;
1. A display system comprising: a display processing device that controls display of an image based on a reference position and a correction amount;
a correction processing device calculates the correction amount of a display position of the image based on the posture change amount, wherein the correction processing device reduces the correction amount based on a result of the detector detecting that the moving body is undergoing the posture change due to the gradient change of the traveling path.
1. the correction processing device reduces the correction amount based on a result of the gradient change detector detecting that the moving body is undergoing a posture change due to a gradient change of the traveling path,
4
2
5
3
6
4
7
7
8
8
9
9
10
5
11
6
12
10
13
11
15
3
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-15 overcome the prior art but remain rejected as indicated above.
See 17/495038 Notice of Allowance, which indicated the following limitations to overcome the prior art, where 19/002128 recites the bolded portions which are also found to overcome the prior art.
a) “a display processing device that controls display of an image based on a reference position and a correction amount;”
b) “a gyro sensor that detects an angular velocity”
c) “a displacement amount calculator that calculates a posture change amount as an angle amount based on the angular velocity detected by the gyro sensor;”
d) “the gradient change detector detects that a posture change due to a gradient change of the traveling path is completed by detecting that an absolute value of the variation amount is equal to or less than a predetermined second threshold value during the posture change due to the gradient change of the traveling path, the correction processing device reduces the correction amount based on a result of the gradient change detector detecting that the moving body is undergoing a posture change due to a gradient change of the traveling path, the second threshold value is smaller than the first threshold value.”
Conclusion
For the prior art referenced and the prior art considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure but not relied upon, see PTO-892 “Notice of References Cited”.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON PRINGLE-PARKER whose telephone number is (571) 272-5690 and e-mail is jason.pringle-parker@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30am-5:00pm est Monday-Friday. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, King Poon can be reached on (571) 270-0728. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, seehttp://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JASON A PRINGLE-PARKER/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2617
Prosecution Insights