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 .
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, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea for the reasons indicated below. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application as also outlined in the following analysis. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons outlined below in further detail.
Carrying out the analysis of patent subject matter eligibility in MPEP 2106 results in the following:
As to claim 1:
Step 1: Is the Claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of Matter?
Claim 1 recites a method for operating an inertial sensor system. Thus, the claim is to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A: Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea?
Claim 1 recites:
A method for operating an inertial sensor system, comprising the following steps:
detecting a stable state of motion using sensor data of the inertial sensor system (the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined elements recite a mental process because the detection of a stable state of motion using sensor data may encompass a user/operator simply carrying out data observation or identification by visually inspecting said data and accordingly falls within the scope of a claim that can be performed in the human mind, such as observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions; see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Sec. III)
ascertaining a current speed and a current orientation using sensor data from the inertial sensor system (the examiner finds the foregoing underlined elements also recite a mental process because the ascertaining of a current speed and a current orientation using sensor data may also encompass a user/operator carrying out data observation or identification by visually inspecting said data and accordingly falls within the scope of a claim that can be performed in the human mind, such as observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions; see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Sec. III)
calculating an average direction of motion and an average orientation for a predetermined time interval using the ascertained current speed and orientation (the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined elements recite a mathematical concept consistent with MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Sec. I, Part C regarding mathematical calculations because the limitation appears to recite calculation of average values related to the parameters of motion and orientation in a predetermined time interval for a given set of data)
calculating a difference between a change in the average direction of motion and a change in the average orientation (the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined elements also recite a mathematical concept consistent with MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Sec. I, Part C regarding mathematical calculations because the limitation appears to recite calculation of a difference between a change in an average value of both motion and orientation such as in mathematical calculation example vi in the cited MPEP section)
adjusting parameters for a correction model for compensating for sensor errors of the inertial sensor system using a minimization of the difference between the changes in the average direction of motion and the average orientation, when the stable state of motion has been detected. (the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined elements also recite a mathematical concept consistent with MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Sec. I, Part C regarding mathematical calculations because the limitation appears to recite the mathematical minimization of a difference between values related to the average direction of motion and orientation, in particular, the examiner notes that Applicant’s as-filed specification page 12, lines 6-21 indicates that the correction model of the compensation of sensor errors can be encompassed by a mathematical model).
Step 2A: Prong two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application?
The elements that are not underlined above are the additional elements; i.e. the claimed inertial sensor system. As noted in Applicant’s as-filed specification page 7, last paragraph, the sensor system can comprise a plurality of inertial sensors and can for example be embodied by at least one rotational rate sensor along with at least one acceleration sensor. Because a rotational rate sensor and acceleration sensor are standard/typical sensors utilized in inertial sensing (see for example, Masad et al US PG-PUB 2019/0277655 A1 [hereafter Masad] ¶ 23 regarding the accelerometers 710 and the gyroscopes 712), these additional elements appear to do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field use of use because they are merely an incidental or taken addition to the claim - see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea?
The examiner finds that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the conclusion that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application – rotational rate and acceleration sensors are routine and well understood as evidenced by, for example, Masad, ¶ 23 which notes that an accelerometers and gyroscopes are inertial sensors that may be part of an inertial sensor module or inertial measurement unit for providing inertial force information including orientation, movement, and rotation that constitutes such an inertial measurement system).
As to claim 9: The claim is directed to an apparatus for processing sensor data from an inertial sensor system but recites largely similar limitations as claim 1. The examiner finds that the only recited difference is a processing device configured to receive and process sensor data from sensors of the inertial sensor system but this use of a processor to carry out the reception and processing of sensor data from sensors is also routine and well understood as evidenced by Masad ¶ 23 and 26 and accordingly a similar analysis applies thereto but is not repeated in detail herein for brevity.
As to claim 10: The claim is directed to a sensor system comprising an acceleration sensor, a rotational rate sensor, and apparatus to process sensor data wherein the apparatus is configured to receive and process sensor data from the acceleration sensor and the rotational rate sensor and includes a processing device configured to carry out limitations similar to claim 1 and 9 above. Because the additional elements of an acceleration sensor and rotational rate sensor are routine and well understood as evidenced by Masad ¶ 23 and 26 for the reasons described previously above, a similar analysis applies thereto but is not repeated in detail herein for brevity.
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, 5, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Masad et al US PG-PUB 2019/0277655 A1 (hereafter Masad).
As to claim 1: Masad discloses a method for operating an inertial sensor system (see ¶ 18), comprising the following steps:
detecting a stable state of motion using sensor data of the inertial sensor system (see ¶ 52 regarding operation of the inertial measurement system 700 which is also designated INS as noted in ¶ 23);
ascertaining a current speed and a current orientation using sensor data from the inertial sensor system (see ¶ 23 regarding measurement by the accelerometer and gyroscope components);
calculating an average direction of motion and an average orientation for a predetermined time interval using the ascertained current speed and orientation (see ¶ 33);
calculating a difference between change in the average direction of motion and a change in the average orientation (see ¶ 35);
and
adjusting parameters for a correction model for compensating for sensor errors of the inertial sensor system using a minimization of the difference between the changes in the average direction of motion and the average orientation, when the stable state of motion has been detected (see ¶ 42-46).
As to claim 5: Masad discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the detecting of the stable state of motion (see ¶ 52) is carried out using the sensor data and/or data from at least one further sensor (see ¶ 21 regarding the additional sensors such as temperature, pressure, or magnetic field sensors).
As to claim 9: Masad discloses an apparatus for processing sensor data from an inertial sensor system (see fig. 1), comprising:
a processing device (702; see ¶ 26) configured to receive and process sensor data from sensors of the inertial sensor system (see ¶ 26 regarding processing of sensor data from the inertial measurement system 700 which is also designated INS as noted in ¶ 23);
wherein the processing device (702) is configured to:
detect a stable state of motion using sensor data of the inertial sensor system (see ¶ 52 regarding operation of the inertial measurement system 700);
ascertain a current speed and a current orientation using sensor data from the inertial sensor system (see ¶ 23 regarding measurement by the accelerometer and gyroscope components);
calculate an average direction of motion and an average orientation for a predetermined time interval using the ascertained current speed and orientation (see ¶ 33);
calculate a difference between change in the average direction of motion and a change in the average orientation (see ¶ 35);
and
adjust parameters for a correction model for compensating for sensor errors of the inertial sensor system using a minimization of the difference between the changes in the average direction of motion and the average orientation, when the stable state of motion has been detected (see ¶ 42-46).
As to claim 10: Masad discloses a sensor system, comprising:
an acceleration sensor (710; see ¶ 21);
a rotational rate sensor (712; see ¶ 21); and
an apparatus configured to process sensor data (see ¶ 26), wherein the apparatus configured to receive and process sensor data from the acceleration sensor and the rotational rate sensor (see ¶ 26), and wherein the apparatus includes:
a processing device (702; see ¶ 26) configured to:
detect a stable state of motion using the sensor data (see ¶ 52 regarding operation of the inertial measurement system 700);
ascertain a current speed and a current orientation using the sensor data (see ¶ 23 regarding measurement by the accelerometer and gyroscope components);
calculate an average direction of motion and an average orientation for a predetermined time interval using the ascertained current speed and orientation (see ¶ 33);
calculate a difference between change in the average direction of motion and a change in the average orientation (see ¶ 35);
and
adjust parameters for a correction model for compensating for sensor errors of the inertial sensor system using a minimization of the difference between the changes in the average direction of motion and the average orientation, when the stable state of motion has been detected (see ¶ 42-46).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masad et al US PG-PUB 2019/0277655 A1 (hereafter Masad) in view of Becheret US PG-PUB 2022/0146281 A1 (hereafter Becheret).
As to claim 2: Masad teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 1, including adjusting of parameters for a correction model (see ¶ 42-46), but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the adjusting of the parameters for the correction model is carried out only when the speed is greater than a predetermined threshold value.
However, Becheret teaches that adjusting a model (see ¶ 51-53 and ¶ 60) may be carried out only when a speed is greater than a predetermined threshold value (see ¶ 61).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Masad’s method such that adjusting of the parameters for the correction model is carried out only when the speed is greater than a predetermined threshold value because certain physical systems utilizing motion require certain speeds to improve accuracy of measurement and predictive data, such as suggested in ¶ 61 of Becheret, and accordingly for these systems, such a minimum speed can improve the accuracy of measurements therein as well as improving modeling thereof and thus could impart these benefits to Masad’s method.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masad et al US PG-PUB 2019/0277655 A1 (hereafter Masad) in view of Horton US Pat 6,647,352 B1 (hereafter Horton).
As to claim 3: Masad teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 1, including detecting a stable state of motion (see ¶ 52 regarding operation of the inertial measurement system 700 described previously in ¶ 23), and/or the average direction of motion (see ¶ 33) and/or the change in orientation (see ¶ 35), and a correction model (see ¶ 42-46), but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the method further comprises ascertaining inaccuracies for the detected stable state of motion, and/or the average direction of motion and/or the change in orientation, and wherein the adjusting of the parameters for the correction model is carried out using the ascertained inaccuracies.
However, Horton teaches ascertaining inaccuracies for a detected stable state of motion and adjusting of parameters for a correction model is carried out using the ascertained inaccuracies (see col. 7, lines 58-67 and col. 8, lines 1-40).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Masad’s method such that it further comprises ascertaining inaccuracies for the detected stable state of motion, and/or the average direction of motion and/or the change in orientation, and wherein the adjusting of the parameters for the correction model is carried out using the ascertained inaccuracies because such steps are an art recognized means of correcting outputs of sensor systems utilized in dynamic positioning and guidance and that require gravity reference, such as suggested in Horton col. 17, lines 51-57, and can thus improve sensor reliability in the processes that use such sensors by compensating and correcting for known inaccuracies that arise even when they are expected to have no output in a stationary state.
As to claim 4: Masad teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 1, including a correction model for compensating for sensor errors (see ¶ 42-46), but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the correction model for compensating for sensor error includes a probabilistic filter including a Kalman filter.
However, Horton teaches use of a correction model that compensates for sensor error and that includes a probabilistic filter including a Kalman filter (see col. 13, lines 27-53).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Masad’s correction model to compensate for sensor error such that it includes a probabilistic filter including a Kalman filter because such compensation is an art recognized means of achieving the useful and predictable result of improving performance of dynamic motion sensing devices by correcting for known error such as those due to physical noise and rate sensing errors, such as suggested in col. 13, lines 31-39, and accordingly can improve the accuracy of such sensors by reducing or eliminating said known errors.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masad et al US PG-PUB 2019/0277655 A1 (hereafter Masad) in view of Seth US PG-PUB 2022/0306089 A1 (hereafter Seth).
As to claim 6: Masad teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 1, including detecting of the stable state of motion (see ¶ 52), but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the detecting of the stable state of motion is carried out using a pre-trained neural network.
However, Seth teaches detection of a stable state of motion that is carried out using a pre-trained neural network (see ¶ 76).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Masad such that the detection of a stable state of motion is carried out using a pre-trained neural network because such a neural network can be used to store historical sensor data to further improve accuracy by verifying sensor output against such data to determine whether there are anomalous readings, such as suggested in ¶ 77- ¶ 79 of Seth, and thus could lead to improved sensor accuracy by recognizing erroneous operation and correcting therefor.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masad et al US PG-PUB 2019/0277655 A1 (hereafter Masad) in view of Hsu US PG-PUB 2016/0214198 A1 (hereafter Hsu).
As to claim 7: Masad teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 1, including calculating of the average direction of motion and/or the average orientation for a time window (see ¶ 33), but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the calculating of the average direction of motion and/or the average orientation is carried out in each case for a time window of one to three seconds.
However, Hsu teaches that calculating of average orientation may be carried out for a time window of one second (see ¶ 27).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Masad’s method such that calculation of the average direction of motion and/or the average orientation is carried out in each case for a time window of one to three seconds because a given physical system using an IMU may move in a frequency of 20 to 60 Hz and would thus require calculation on approximately the same scale in order to ensure accuracy of sensing, such as suggested in ¶ 27 of Hsu, and this can be important in ensuring accurate use of the device in which the IMU is being utilized, such as further suggested in Hsu ¶ 38.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masad et al US PG-PUB 2019/0277655 A1 (hereafter Masad) in view of Tanaka US PG-PUB 2020/0072617 A1 (hereafter Tanaka).
As to claim 8: Masad teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 1, including calculating of the average direction of motion and/or the average orientation (see ¶ 33), but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the calculating of the average direction of motion and/or the average orientation is carried out in each case using a predefined weighting of individual speed values and/or rotational rate values.
However, Tanaka teaches calculating of direction of motion may utilize a predefined weighting of individual speed values and/or rotational rate values (see ¶ 65 and ¶ 71).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Masad’s method such that calculating of the average direction of motion and/or the average orientation is carried out in each case using a predefined weighting of individual speed values and/or rotational rate values because certain more trusted measurements may then be given more weight in order to improve sensing accuracy, such as suggested in ¶ 73 of Tanaka, and accordingly could also serve to improve Masad’s measurement accuracy.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN M ROYSTON whose telephone number is (571)270-7215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30 E.S.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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
/JOHN M ROYSTON/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights