Patent: 13/082,294 : “Rest detection using accelerometer” - too obvious to be patented?

Question

This question is about the patent Rest detection using accelerometer (application 20120259578 filing date: April 7, 2011).

As per my understanding the patent talks about using the Accelerometer acceleration values and "change in angle" to detect whether the device is resting or processing an active user gesture.

But these same parameters are used as inputs in many mobile games. (example1) (example2)

Furthermore, the "rest state" is not well defined in the published document. In literal sense rest means: "Cease work or movement", but to get a reading in the accelerometer and to get a change in the angle the device needs to move.

So, are not the published claims too generic obvious to be granted a patent ?

Answer 1

First of all, this is a patent application. Whether it will ever be granted, and with which scope, remains to be be seen.

The independent claim as filed already clearly specifies both "measuring a level of acceleration vibration" and "detecting a change in an angle of a measured gravity vector [...] contemporaneously" in order to determine whether the mobile device is at rest. I do not see these aspects anticipated by any of your references. Your reference "example1" was in any case published after the filing date of the application in question and is thus irrelevant.

If and whenever the patent should be granted, it will likely cover a much narrower scope than what was claimed at the time of filing.

You can get an insight into the state of the procedure through the USPTO's PAIR: Enter 13/082,294 in the search field and crack the captcha. You can then click on the Image File Wrapper tab (near the top, middle tab). Here you see all the original documents exchanged during the procedure. It seems the USPTO examiner has cited two patent documents and two pieces of non-patent literature. (See items labeled "Foreign Reference" and "Non Patent Literature.)

Answer 2

"Generic" doesn't really have a relevant meaning to patentability. If you're asking about whether or not the claims are novel or non-obvious over the references you linked, it's hard to say. The claim talks about measuring "acceleration vibration" whereas your links discuss generally using a mobile device's accelerometer.

I'd say the first step to the analysis would be determining what the claim means by "acceleration vibration."