Ex Parte Supino et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 27, 201713295218 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2017) Copy Citation United States Patent and Trademark Office UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O.Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 13/295,218 11/14/2011 Ryan Supino H0016994-01-5603 9672 89953 7590 HONEYWELL/FOGG Patent Services 115 Tabor Road P.O. Box 377 MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950 EXAMINER NOLAN, PETER D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3661 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/01/2017 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): patentservices-us @ honey well, com docket@fogglaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RYAN SUPINO and ROBERT D. HORNING Appeal 2015-000796 Application 13/295,2181 Technology Center 3600 Before BRUCE T. WIEDER, BRADLEY B. BAYAT, and ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of claims 1—16, 18, 19, and 22—24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellants’ claimed invention relates to “a method of personal navigation using stride vectoring.” (Spec. 115.) Claims 1,10, and 18 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 illustrative. It recites (emphasis added): 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Honeywell International Inc. (Appeal Br. 1.) Appeal 2015-000796 Application 13/295,218 1. A method for personal navigation, comprising: providing a first object and a second object that both include components of a lateration system, the lateration system comprising at least one transmitter attached to the first object, and a plurality of receivers attached to the second object, wherein the first object or the second object further includes an inertial measurement unit (IMU); transmitting signal pulses from the transmitter to the plurality of receivers; measuring a first position vector with the lateration system from the first object to the second object in a coordinate reference frame of the first object using a time difference of arrival of the signal pulses at the receivers; measuring a second position vector with the lateration system from the second object to the first object in a coordinate reference frame of the second object using the time difference of arrival of the signal pulses at the receivers; calculating a distance, direction, and orientation of the second object with respect to the first object using the first and second position vectors; determining a corrected path for navigation from the calculated distance, direction, and orientation of the second object with respect to the first object; and employing inertial data from the IMU to aid in correction of position, heading, and distance errors. REJECTIONS Claims 1, 2, 4—9,2 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kuipers (US 4,298,874, iss. Nov. 3, 1981), Szajnowski (US 7,170,820 B2, iss. Jan. 30, 2007), Levi (US 5,583,776, iss. Dec. 10, 2 In view of the discussion of the rejection of claim 9 (Final Action 6), we treat the statement that “[cjlaims 1, 2, 4—8, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a),” i.e., excluding claim 9 {id. at 3), as a typographical error. 2 Appeal 2015-000796 Application 13/295,218 1996), and Shun-yuan Yeh et al., GET A sandals: a footstep location tracking system, 11 Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 451—63 (Aug. 2007). Claims 10, 11, 13—16, and 22—243 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kuipers, Szajnowski, Yeh, and Stacy J. Morris, A Shoe-Integrated Sensor System for Wireless Gait Analysis and Real-Time Therapeutic Feedback (Aug. 19, 2004) (Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology). Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kuipers, Szajnowski, Levi, Yeh, Morris, and Hutchings (US 6,122,960, iss. Sept. 26, 2000). ANALYSIS Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 18, and 19 Appellants argue that “Kuipers discloses a method for tracking objects, in which a vector field is radiated from a first body to a second body, and a vector field is also radiated from the second body to the first body,” that “Szajnowski discloses an object tracking system comprising multiple passive sensor devices at different sites in a distributed sensor system such as used for surveillance,” that “Levi discloses a microcomputer- assisted position finding system that integrates GPS data, dead reckoning sensors, and digital maps into a navigation instrument used for foot travel,” 3 In view of the discussion of the rejection of claims 22—24 (Final Action 13), we treat the statement that “[cjlaims 10, 11, and 13—16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a),” i.e., excluding claims 22—24 {id. at 8), as a typographical error. 3 Appeal 2015-000796 Application 13/295,218 and that “Yeh discloses traditional Japanese GET A sandals that are equipped with force, ultrasonic, orientation, and RFID sensors, as well as an accelerometer, to produce a wearable footstep location tracking system.” (Appeal Br. 7—8.) Specifically, Appellants argue that “that there is no suggestion or motivation to use an IMU [inertial measurement unit] as disclosed in Yeh in the combination of Kuipers, Szajnowski, and Levi. (Id. at 8.) In particular, Appellants argue that Levi “describe[s] the disadvantages of using an INS [inertial navigation system] in foot traveler (personal) navigation. (See col. 1, lines 24—36). Thus, Levi essentially teaches away from the use of an INS (or IMU) in personal navigation.” {Id.) The Examiner disagrees. (See Answer 3—6.) Levi, which was filed in 1995, discloses: A typical INS system has a drift rate on the order of 0.8 miles per hour (mph). Although this error could easily exceed the rate of travel for a person walking on foot, it may be negligible for a jet aircraft. Future developments in inertial sensors may lower costs, but improvements in accuracy are less predictable. For these reasons, inertial navigation may not be a viable option for low-cost foot traveler navigation. (Levi, col. 1,11. 29-36.) In short, Levi discloses that, as of 1995, “inertial navigation may not be a viable option for low-cost foot traveler navigation,” but that “[f]uture developments” may alter this conclusion. (Id. ) Thus, rather than “teaching] away from the use of an INS (or IMU) in personal navigation,” Levi suggests that one may wish to consider “[f]uture developments in inertial sensors.” (See Appeal Br. at 8; see also Levi, col. 1,11. 33—34.) Yeh, published in 2007, discloses use of inertial navigation in footwear. (Yeh 451, 455—56.) 4 Appeal 2015-000796 Application 13/295,218 Appellants do not persuasively argue why one of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the 1995 suggestion in Levi to consider future developments regarding inertial sensors, would not have looked for such future developments, as in Yeh’s disclosure in 2007. Therefore, we are not persuaded “that there is no suggestion or motivation to use an IMU as disclosed in Yeh in the combination of Kuipers, Szajnowski, and Levi.” (See Appeal Br. 8.) Nor are we persuaded that the Examiner erred in combining Yeh with Kuipers, Szajnowski, and Levi. Appellants next argue that Yeh “does not disclose employing inertial data from the IMU to aid in correction of4position’ errors and ‘heading’ errors as recited in claims 1 and 18.” (Id. at 9.) Once again, the Examiner disagrees. (See Answer 6—7.) With regard to position correction, Yeh discloses: Figure 13 plots the average positional errors of subjects using our footstep system and the accelerometer-based distance measurement. The curve shows an average positional error of 2.4 m over 10 m of stairs. We perform the same experiment using the ultrasound-based distance measurement and observe a 71.42% failure rate, since stairs form sound-proof obstacles between two sandals. Therefore, for stairs our system must rely on accelerometer-based distance measurements. (Yeh 461.) In other words, Yeh discloses that “positional error is due to the ‘stairs [forming] sound-proof obstacles between two sandals’” (Answer 7, quoting Yeh 461), and that accelerometer-based, i.e., IMU-based, distance measurements are used to correct the positional error (id.). With regard to heading correction, “Figure 6 [of Yeh] shows the trace of a user turning right, thereby adjusting their heading.” (Id.) More specifically, Yeh discloses that “since accelerometer readings are discrete- 5 Appeal 2015-000796 Application 13/295,218 time signals, they can be modeled as discrete time points on a nonlinear curve.” (Yell 456.) Yeh further discloses that each discrete-time point contains information relating to “the direction of the acceleration on the horizontal plane obtained from an orientation sensor,” i.e., obtained from an IMU. (Id.) The “direction of the acceleration” corresponds to the heading. Yeh discloses that “[t]he advantage over the ultrasound-based method is that the accelerometer-based method is not limited by between-feet obstacle [sic] and it works on stairs.” (Id.) In short, Yeh discloses that, as a person moves, position and heading information can be corrected/updated by employing inertial data from an accelerometer and orientation sensor, i.e., an IMU. Appellants do not persuasively argue that the term “correction” does not include the correction of old position and heading information, i.e., updating of information. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under § 103. Appellants argue claims 2, 4—9, 18, and 19 with claim 1. (Appeal Br. 6—10.) Therefore, claims 2, 4—9, 18, and 19 fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Claims 10, 11, 13—16, and 22—24 Claim 10 relates to a system for personal navigation and recites, in relevant part, “an inertial measurement unit (IMU) operatively coupled to the processor, the IMU comprising a plurality of micro-electro-mechanical systems (MEMS) gyroscopes and accelerometers.” Claim 10 is rejected under 103 in view of Kuipers, Szajnowski, Yeh, and Morris. Appellants argue that “Yeh does not describe the IMU as comprising a plurality of MEMS gyroscopes and accelerometers” and that “there is no 6 Appeal 2015-000796 Application 13/295,218 suggestion or motivation to use an IMU as disclosed in Morris, or in Yell, in the combination of Kuipers and Szajnowski.” (Appeal Br. 11—12.) Morris discloses “A Shoe-Integrated Sensor System for Wireless Gait Analysis and Real-Time Therapeutic Feedback.” (Morris at 3.) Specifically, Morris discloses that “[tjhree gyroscopes and two dual-axis linear accelerometers were chosen to be placed at the back of the shoe.” {Id. at 51.) We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s determination that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to substitute the IMU disclosed by Yeh with the IMU disclosed by Morris to obtain predictable results. The IMU of Yeh determines the angle of the foot by using a 3D orientation sensor and the displacements, velocities and strides using dual-axis accelerometers. Morris teaches that a MEMS board with two dual-axis accelerometers and three gyroscopes to determine at least the same information was known in the navigation art. One of ordinary skill in the navigation art could have substituted the IMU of Yeh with the IMU of Morris, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable as supported by Morris that further tested adding the ultrasound sensors to measure the distance and relative orientation between the feet. (Morris, pgs. 51—52). (Answer 10-11.) We also agree with and adopt the Examiner’s determination that [a] motivation for combining the IMU disclosed in Yeh with the combination of Kuipers and Szajnowski was that the inertial measuring system (IMU) of Yeh would improve the overall robustness of the system of Kuipers, in view of Szajnowski, and corrects [sic] the position vector between two bodies (disclosed 7 Appeal 2015-000796 Application 13/295,218 as the step vector between two sandals in Yeh) when the relative motion between the two bodies includes a vertical displacement. (Id. at 9.) In view of the above, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 10 under § 103. Appellants argue claims 11, 13—16, and 22— 24 with claim 10. (Appeal Br. 10-13.) Therefore, claims 11, 13—16, and 22-24 fall with claim 10. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Claims 3 and 12 Appellants argue that “[ajdding the teachings of Hutchings as proposed by the Examiner does not overcome the deficiencies of the other cited references.” (Appeal Br. 13.) However, for the reasons discussed above, we are not persuaded of the alleged deficiencies of the other cited references. Thus, we are also not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 3 and 12. DECISION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—16, 18, 19, and 22—24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation