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 .
Status of Claims
This is a Final Rejection office action in response to application Serial No. 17/348,575. Claim(s) 1-31 have been examined and fully considered.
Claims 1-21 have been amended.
Claim(s) 22-31 are newly added
Claim(s) 1-31 are pending in Instant Application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 10/31/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered if signed and initialed by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 24 recites wherein the magnetic-measurement device comprises the system. However, claim 24 depends from claim 9, which is a computer-readable medium claim that does not recite “a system”. Subsequently there is insufficient antecedent basis for this claim.
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(s) 1-31 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 based on the following analysis because
the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without being significantly more.
Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claim(s) 1-31 are directed to a method (process), a non-transitory storage medium, a
system respectively. As such, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention.
If the claim recites a statutory category of invention, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A. Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Claim 1 recites abstract limitations, including those bolded below:
A method comprising:
by a computing device, accessing one or more first trajectories comprising first magnetic measurements in an area collected by a magnetic-measurement device at a first time;
by the computing device, accessing one or more second trajectories comprising second magnetic measurements in the area collected at one or more second times;
by the computing device, performing one or more correlation analyses
between one or more first portions of the first trajectories and one or more second portions of the second trajectories to determine similarities between the first and second portions; and
by the computing device, performing navigation or localization based on one or more of the determined similarities.
Claim 9 recites abstract limitations, including those bolded below:
One or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media embodying software that is operable when executed to:
access one or more first trajectories comprising first magnetic measurements in an area collected by a magnetic-measurement device at a first time;
access one or more second trajectories comprising second magnetic measurements in the area collected at one or more second times;
perform one or more correlation analyses between one or more first portions of the first trajectories and one or more second portions of the second trajectories to determine similarities between the first and second portions; and
perform navigation or localization based on one or more of the determined similarities.
Claim 15 recites abstract limitations, including those bolded below:
A system comprising:
one or more processors; and
one or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media coupled to one or more of the processors and comprising instructions operable when executed by one or more of the processors to cause the system to:
access one or more first trajectories comprising first magnetic measurements in an area collected by a magnetic-measurement device at a first time;
access one or more second trajectories comprising second magnetic measurements
in the area collected at one or more second times;
perform one or more correlation analyses between one or more first portions of the first trajectories and one or more second portions of the second trajectories to determine similarities between the first and second portions; and
perform navigation or localization based on one or more of the determined similarities.
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable
interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind, or by a human using pen and paper, and therefore recite mental processes. More specifically, as there is no recitation of a processing structure (i.e. processor, etc.) for executing the method steps, nothing in the claim element precludes the aforementioned steps from practically being performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. (i.e. determine similarities between the first and
second portions etc.). Examiner notes that the mere recitation of a generic computer would not take the claim out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
If the claim recites a judicial exception in step 2A Prong One, the claim requires further analysis in step 2A Prong Two. In step 2A Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
Claim 1 recites the additional elements of:
A method comprising:
[AltContent: ]by a computing device, accessing one or more first trajectories comprising first magnetic
measurements in an area collected by a magnetic-measurement device at a first time;
by the computing device, accessing one or more second trajectories comprising second
magnetic measurements in the area collected at one or more second times;
by the computing device, performing one or more correlation analyses between one or more first portions of the first trajectories and one or more second portions of the second trajectories to determine similarities between the first and second portions; and
by the computing device, performing navigation or localization based on one or more of
the determined similarities.
Claim 9 recites the additional elements of:
One or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media embodying software that is
operable when executed to:
access one or more first trajectories comprising first magnetic measurements in an area collected by a magnetic-measurement device at a first time;
access one or more second trajectories comprising second magnetic measurements in the area collected at one or more second times;
perform one or more correlation analyses between one or more first portions of the first trajectories and one or more second portions of the second trajectories to determine similarities between the first and second portions; and
perform navigation or localization based on one or more of the determined similarities.
Claim 15 recites abstract limitations, including those bolded below: A system comprising:
one or more processors; and
one or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media coupled to one or more of
the processors and comprising instructions operable when executed by one or more of the
processors to cause the system to:
access one or more first trajectories comprising first magnetic measurements in an area collected by a magnetic-measurement device at a first time;
access one or more second trajectories comprising second magnetic measurements in the area collected at one or more second times;
perform one or more correlation analyses between one or more first portions of the first trajectories and one or more second portions of the second trajectories to determine similarities between the first and second portions; and
perform navigation or localization based on one or more of the determined similarities.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
The processing functions of the “computing device,” “one or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media” and “system” comprising generic computer elements, are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The data collection/access function of the “computing device” and “magnetic-measurement device” amounts to extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
In addition, each of these aforementioned additional elements indicate a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application in step 2A Prong Two, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, and requires
further analysis under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
As discussed above, The processing functions of the “computing device,” “one or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media” and “system” comprising generic computer elements, are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular
telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).
As discussed above, each of these aforementioned additional limitations also amounts to
merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, which does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The data collection/access functions of the “computing device” and “magnetic-measurement device” amounts to extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g). The Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs. and buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). In addition, the specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements as it describes the additional elements as well-understood or routine or conventional (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. §112(a).
Claim 21, recites analogous limitations that are present in claim(s) 1 and 15, therefore claim 21 would be rejected for the same/similar premise above.
The various metrics/limitations of claims 2-6, 10-14, 16-20, 22-23, 26-27 and 29-31
merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations (e.g., further characterizing the measurements of magnetic data, the processing thereof, etc.) . For the reasons described above, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea. Examiner notes that claim 8 does not recite the active collection of data by an inertial sensor of a phone, and the analysis of the data itself is abstract.
Claim(s) 8, 25, and 29 further recites the function of collecting measurement data by the
magnetic-measurement device(s). At this level of breadth, these limitations merely amount to characterizing a field of use and data gathering, which is well understood, routine and conventional activity.
Claim(s) 7, 24 and 28 further characterizes the magnetic-measurement device being part of
the system. At this level of breadth, these limitations merely amount to characterizing a field of use.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-31 is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761(CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim(s) 1-31 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1-2, 5-7, 10-11, 13-14, 17-19, 22-23, 25-26, 29-31, 34-35 and 37 of U.S. Patent No. US 11,680,802 В2 in view of YANG et al. (Pub. No.: US 2016/0084659). This is a nonstatutory double patenting rejection. The scope of the inventions for both applications are similar as claims 1, 9, 15 and 21 of the instant application and claims 1, 8, 15, 19-20 and 24 of the copending application are directed to similar limitations as presented below.
Regarding [claim 1] of the instant application, claim(s) 1, 9, 15 and 21 of U.S. Patent No. US
12,056,633 discloses
A method comprising:
[AltContent: ]by a computing device, accessing one or more first trajectories comprising first magnetic
measurements in an area collected by a magnetic-measurement device at a first time;
by the computing device, accessing one or more second trajectories comprising second magnetic measurements in the area collected at one or more second times;
by the computing device, performing one or more correlation analyses between one or
more first portions of the first trajectories and one or more second portions of the second trajectories to determine similarities between the first and second portions;…
Claims 1, 9, 15 and 21 U.S. Patent No. US 11,680,802 В2 does not explicitly disclose
…
by the computing device, performing navigation or localization based on one or more of the determined similarities.
However, Yang teaches
…
by the computing device, performing navigation or localization based on one or more of the determined similarities (see, Paragraph [0029).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to modify the teachings of copending application and implement magnetic measurements collect by magnetic device(s) and perform navigation or localization that determine similarities as taught by Yang. One would be motivated to make this modification in order to convey accurate location sensing can be achieved based at least on such mappings and magnetic measurements at a location of the device within the environment (see, Abstract).
As to [claim 2] of the instant application of U.S. Patent No. US 12,056,633 discloses “where each of one or more of the correlation analyses comprises a similarity correlation analysis that comprises one or more of: normalized correlation; cross correlation; one or more spectral criteria functions; or one or more difference criteria functions.”
As to [claim 3] of the instant application of U.S. Patent No. US 12,056,633 discloses “wherein each of one or more of the magnetic measurements comprises one or more measurements of magnetic susceptibility or magnetic conductivity.”
As to [claim 4] of the instant application of U.S. Patent No. US 12,056,633 discloses “wherein each of one or more of the probabilistic magnetic measurements comprises one or more measurements of a magnetic field.”
As to [claim 5] of the instant application of U.S. Patent No. US 12,056,633 discloses
“wherein: one or more of the correlation analyses between one or more first portions of the first trajectories and one or more second portions of the second trajectories account for errors in one or more of the first or second trajectories; and one or more of the errors: comprise noise; are known; are in one or more of the magnetic measurements in the trajectories; or are in one or more determined locations where one or more of the magnetic measurements in the trajectories were made.”
As to [claim 6] of the instant application of U.S. Patent No. US 12,056,633 discloses “wherein each of one or more of the similarity correlation analysis analyses comprises determining a correspondence between different gradient profiles associated with the first or second magnetic measurements.”
As to [claim 7] of the instant application of U.S. Patent No. US 12,056,633 discloses “wherein the computing device comprises the magnetic-measurement device.”
As to [claim 8] of the instant application of U.S. Patent No. US 12,056,633 discloses “wherein one or more of the second magnetic measurements in one or more of the second trajectories were collected by the magnetic-measurement device or one or more other magnetic-measurement devices.”
Regarding [claim 9], recites analogous limitations that are present in claim 1, therefore claim 9
would be rejected for the same/similar premise above.
As to [claim 10], recites analogous limitations that are present in claim 2, therefore claim 10
would be rejected for the same/similar premise above.
As to [claim 11], recites analogous limitations that are present in claim 3, therefore claim 11 would be rejected for the same/similar premise above.
As to [claim 12], recites analogous limitations that are present in claim 4, therefore claim 12 would be rejected for the same/similar premise above.
As to [claim 13], recites analogous limitations that are present in claim 5, therefore claim 13
would be rejected for the same/similar premise above.
As to [claim 14], recites analogous limitations that are present in claim 6, therefore claim 14
would be rejected for the same/similar premise above.
As to [claim 15], recites analogous limitations that are present in claim(s) 1, therefore claim 15
would be rejected for the same/similar premise above.
As to [claim 16], recites analogous limitations that are present in claim 2, therefore claim 16
would be rejected for the same/similar premise above.
As to [claim 17], recites analogous limitations that are present in claim 3, therefore claim 17
would be rejected for the same/similar premise above.
As to [claim 18], recites analogous limitations that are present in claim 4, therefore claim 18
would be rejected for the same/similar premise above.
As to [claim 19], recites analogous limitations that are present in claim 5, therefore claim 19
would be rejected for the same/similar premise above.
As to [claim 20], recites analogous limitations that are present in claim 6, therefore claim 20 would be rejected for the same/similar premise above.
Regarding [claim 21], recites analogous limitations that are present in claim(s) 1 and 15, therefore claim 21 would be rejected for the same/similar premise above.
As to [claim 22], U.S. Patent No. US 11,680,802 В2 does not explicitly disclose the first time is after one or more of the second times; or the first time is before one or more of the second times.
However, Yang teaches
wherein: the first time is after one or more of the second times; or the first time is before one or more of the second times (see, Paragraph [0020]; [0028]; and [0039]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to modify the teachings of copending application and implement magnetic measurements collect by magnetic device(s) and perform navigation or localization that determine similarities as taught by Yang. One would be motivated to make this modification in order to convey accurate location sensing can be achieved based at least on such mappings and magnetic measurements at a location of the device within the environment (see, Abstract).
As to [claim 23], U.S. Patent No. US 11,680,802 В2 does not explicitly disclose
wherein each of one or more of the magnetic measurements comprises one or more of: a total value of a magnetic field.
However, Yang teaches
wherein each of one or more of the magnetic measurements comprises one or more of: a total value of a magnetic field (see, Paragraph [0028]); an inclination angle of the magnetic field; a declination angle of the magnetic field (see, Paragraph [0029]); an x component of the magnetic field; a y component of the magnetic field; or a z component of the magnetic field (see, Paragraphs [0019]; [0020]; and [0021]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to modify the teachings of copending application and implement magnetic measurements collect by magnetic device(s) and perform navigation or localization that determine similarities as taught by Yang. One would be motivated to make this modification in order to convey accurate location sensing can be achieved based at least on such mappings and magnetic measurements at a location of the device within the environment (see, Abstract).
As to [claim 24], U.S. Patent No. US 11,680,802 В2 does not explicitly disclose
wherein the magnetic-measurement device comprises the system
However, Yang teaches
wherein the magnetic-measurement device comprises the system (see, Paragraphs [0063]; and [0070]: see also [0048] Fig. 11).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to modify the teachings of copending application and implement magnetic measurements collect by magnetic device(s) and perform navigation or localization that determine similarities as taught by Yang. One would be motivated to make this modification in order to convey accurate location sensing can be achieved based at least on such mappings and magnetic measurements at a location of the device within the environment (see, Abstract).
As to [claim 25], U.S. Patent No. US 11,680,802 В2 does not explicitly disclose wherein one or more of the second magnetic measurements in one or more of the second trajectories were collected by the magnetic-measurement device or one or more other magnetic-measurement devices.
However, Yang teaches
wherein one or more of the second magnetic measurements in one or more of the second trajectories were collected by the magnetic-measurement device or one or more other magnetic-measurement devices (see, Paragraphs [0049]; [0028]; and [0039].).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to modify the teachings of copending application and implement magnetic measurements collect by magnetic device(s) and perform navigation or localization that determine similarities as taught by Yang. One would be motivated to make this modification in order to convey accurate location sensing can be achieved based at least on such mappings and magnetic measurements at a location of the device within the environment (see, Abstract).
As to [claim 26], U.S. Patent No. US 11,680,802 В2 does not explicitly disclose
wherein: the first time is after one or more of the second times; or the first time is before one or more of the second times.
However, Yang teaches
wherein: the first time is after one or more of the second times; or the first time is before one or more of the second times (see, Paragraph [0020]:”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to modify the teachings of copending application and implement magnetic measurements collect by magnetic device(s) and perform navigation or localization that determine similarities as taught by Yang. One would be motivated to make this modification in order to convey accurate location sensing can be achieved based at least on such mappings and magnetic measurements at a location of the device within the environment (see, Abstract).
As to [claim 27], recites analogous limitations that are present in claim(s) 23, therefore claim 27 would be rejected for the same/similar premise above.
As to [claim 28], recites analogous limitations that are present in claim(s) 24, therefore claim 28 would be rejected for the same/similar premise above.
As to [claim 29], recites analogous limitations that are present in claim(s) 25, therefore claim 29 would be rejected for the same/similar premise above.
As to [claim 30], recites analogous limitations that are present in claim(s) 26, therefore claim 30 would be rejected for the same/similar premise above.
As to [claim 31], recites analogous limitations that are present in claim(s) 27, therefore claim 31 would be rejected for the same/similar premise above.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being
anticipated by Yang et al. (Pub. No.: US 2016/0084659), hereinafter, referred to as “Yang”.
Regarding [claim 1], Yang discloses a method (see, Abstract; and Paragraph [0019]: “As
illustrated in FIG. 1, at least two stages can be implemented or otherwise relied upon to determine a location estimate of a device within an environment based at least on the magnetic field footprint (or, more simply, “magnetic footprint”) of the environment”) comprising:
by a computing device (see, “the electronic device 210 (also herein referred to as computing device 210)”), accessing one or more first trajectories (“214”) comprising first magnetic measurements in an area collected by a magnetic-measurement device at a first time (see, Paragraphs [0018]-[0020]: “In at least certain embodiments, such as example embodiment 230 shown in FIG. 2B, the electronic device 210 (also herein referred to as computing device 210) can include a magnetic sensor 260 that can probe the magnetic field at a location of the electronic device 210. In one example, the magnetic sensor 260 can be embodied in or can include a solid-state three-axis magnetometer, which can provide at least three readings, or information structures, indicative or otherwise representative of three components of the magnetic field in a sensor reference frame.”; [0024]: “As an illustration, FIG. 2A presents an example environment 218 in which an electronic device 210 can traverse a path 214 while performing a measurement of the magnetic field at certain locations (represented with solid dots) within the path 214” and [0048]: “At block 1130, a first component of the magnetic field vector can be determined or otherwise accessed based at least on the acceleration vector. In one implementation, the first component can be determined by projecting the magnetic field vector onto a predetermined or otherwise desired direction in space. For example, as described herein, the first component can be the projection of the magnetic field vector onto an axis parallel to the gravity vector in an earth coordinate system.”);
by the computing device, accessing one or more second trajectories comprising second magnetic measurements in the area collected at one or more second times (see, Figures 11-12; Paragraphs [0019]: “ Implementation of the stage 110 can include magnetic measurements at predetermined locations in order to generate, or update, a map or spatial distribution of a metric (e.g., a scalar or a vector) representative or otherwise indicative of a magnetic field vector at a specific location. … Such values can be retained in one or more
memory elements, such as in an information storage or repository, as a reference magnetic
signature or footprint information resource (e.g., database). As an illustration, FIG. 2A presents
an example environment 218 in which an electronic device 210 can traverse a path 214 while
performing a measurement of the magnetic field at certain locations (represented with solid
dots) within the path 214. .. The electronic device 210 can communicate information acquired
via the measurements to one or more network(s) 220. …In at least certain embodiments, the
information can be communicated wirelessly via one or more links 224, and can be retained in
one or more memory elements 228 (which may be referred to as magnetic map(s) 228).” ;
[0020]: “In at least certain embodiments, such as example embodiment 230 shown in FIG. 2B, the electronic device 210 (also herein referred to as computing device 210) can include a
magnetic sensor 260 that can probe the magnetic field at a location of the electronic
device 210.”; and [0028]: “In connection with the mapping stage 110, FIG. 3A presents an
example scenario in which measurements of magnetic field are obtained along a path 310 within an indoor environment 300 (e.g., an office environment). The norm (which also may be referred to as the magnitude) IB(r)I of the magnetic field vector B(r) measured at different locations along the path 310 is shown in FIG. 3B for two different measurement instances conveyed
with traces 360 and 370-for the same path 310. From the traces 360 and 370, it can be gleaned
that significant spatial variations of magnetic field are present along the path 310, and that the observed spatial distributions 360 and 370 of the magnetic field are consistent overtime.”)
by the computing device, performing one or more correlation analyses between one or more first portions of the first trajectories and one or more second portions of the second trajectories to determine similarities between the first and second portions (see,
Figures 11-12; Paragraphs [0019]-[0020] and [0028]-[0029); and
by the computing device, performing navigation or localization based on one or more of the determined similarities (see, [0029]: “ With reference to FIG. 1, a second stage of location sensing based at least on a magnetic footprint can include a location determination stage 120, which also may be referred to as a localization stage 120, that permits determination of a location estimate for the ground-truth location of an electronic device based at least on an observed metric representative or indicative of the magnetic field at the ground-truth location. To at least such an end, in one example, implementation of the location determination
stage 120 can include performance of one or more magnetic measurements at a ground-truth
location, and analysis of the magnetic measurement(s) based at least on a magnetic footprint
that is generated or otherwise made available via the magnetic mapping stage 110. In one
embodiment, a magnetic sensor (e.g., magnetic sensor 260) integrated into or functionally coupled to an electronic device (e.g., electronic device 210) that performs the location determination stage 120 can performs the magnetic measurements. In one example, the analysis of the magnetic measurement(s) can include a comparison of the one or more magnetic measurements with respect to magnetic metrics representative or otherwise indicative of the magnetic footprint. A location estimate of a ground-truth location can be determined based at
least on such a comparison.”).
As to [claim 2], Yang discloses the method of Claim 1. Yang discloses further wherein each of one or more of the correlation analyses comprises a similarity correlation analysis (see, Paragraphs [0019]-[0020] and [0028-[0029]) that comprises one or more of:
normalized correlation (see, Paragraph [0041]: “In a localization stage of location
[AltContent: ]sensing in accordance with aspects of this disclosure, the difference between a current magnetic measurement and available (e.g., prerecorded) magnetic reference data can be normalized (e.g., weighted) via the orientation variance at a specific position of a user device (e.g., electronic device 210). Therefore, in areas having substantive soft iron distortions, the different magnetic measurements due to the user-user traversing an environment in different directions (e.g., different yaw) may cause a lesser divergence of a tracking processing resource (such as a processor or track filter unit).”);
cross correlation;
one or more spectral criteria functions; or
one or more difference criteria functions.
As to [claim 3], Yang discloses the method of Claim 1.
Yang further discloses wherein each of one or more of the magnetic measurements comprises
one or more measurements of magnetic susceptibility or magnetic conductivity (see Paragraph [0039]-[0041] disclosing magnetic maps to address soft-iron distortions in a device's environment)
As to [claim 4], Yang discloses the method of Claim 1.
Yang further discloses wherein each of one or more of the magnetic measurements comprises one or more measurements of a magnetic field (see, Paragraph [0030]: “In at least certain embodiments, the disclosure provides adaptive use of magnetic information for location sensing. A magnetic sensor (e.g., a magnetometer) on an electronic device can provide, in a single measurement, three-dimensional (3D) readings representative of a measured magnetic field. Such readings are generally represent the measured magnetic field in a sensor coordinate frame (or sensor coordinate system), and may be referred to as "3D magnetic readings"”).
As to [claim 5], Yang discloses the method of Claim 1.
Yang further discloses wherein:
one or more of the correlation analyses between one or more first portions of the first trajectories and one or more second portions of the second trajectories account for errors in one or more of the first or second trajectories; and one or more of the errors:
comprise noise (see, Paragraph [0040]: “Without intending to be bound by theory and/or
[AltContent: ]modeling, it can be appreciated that in certain scenarios (e.g., certain indoor environments), soft-iron distortions can change relatively gradually across space. Therefore, in one aspect, a k may be averaged over a spatial window S (e.g., a region spanning about 1 m to 2 m) in order to mitigate or avoid measurement noise in F k and Bk.”);
are known;
are in one or more of the magnetic measurements in the trajectories; or are in one or more determined locations where one or more of the magnetic measurements in the trajectories were made (see, Paragraph [0041]: “In a localization stage of location sensing in
[AltContent: ]accordance with aspects of this disclosure, the difference between a current magnetic measurement and available (e.g., prerecorded) magnetic reference data can be normalized (e.g., weighted) via the orientation variance at a specific position of a user device (e.g., electronic device 210). Therefore, in areas having substantive soft iron distortions, the different magnetic measurements due to the user-user traversing an environment in different directions (e.g., different yaw) may cause a lesser divergence of a tracking processing resource (such as a processor or track filter unit).”).
As to [claim 6], Yang discloses the method of Claim 1.
Yang further discloses wherein each of one or more of the correlation analyses comprises determining a correspondence between different gradient profiles associated with the first or second magnetic measurements (see, Paragraphs [0029]; and [0043]-[0044]: “Therefore, each of the traces 860, 870, and 880 correspond to a specific height. As it can be gleaned from charts 810 and 850, although the absolute measurements are different at different height, the specific changes of the magnetic metric (which also may be referred to as pattern of changes) along the considered trajectory remains substantially consistently comparable. Without intending to be bound by theory and/or modeling, it should be recognized that the shift in time between the different traces in an illustrated chart is essentially due to different velocity at which the considered trajectory is traversed. Accordingly, in one aspect, such a shift can be addressed via time alignment. Similarly, FIG. 9 also illustrates metrics representative of magnetic field as a function of time along a trajectory at substantially constant height (or at a substantial isoheight). Each of the traces 912, 914, and 916 illustrated at each of panels 910,920,930, and 940 corresponds to a specific height (each an isoheight). From such traces, it can be gleaned that although the absolute measurements are different at different height, the specific changes of the magnetic metric (which also may be referred to as pattern of changes) along the considered trajectory remains substantially consistently comparable.”).
As to [claim 7], Yang discloses the method of Claim 1.
Yang further discloses wherein the computing device comprises the magnetic-measurement device (see, Paragraph [0029]: “a magnetic sensor (e.g., magnetic sensor 260) integrated into or functionally coupled to an electronic device (e.g., electronic device 210) that performs the location determination stage 120 can performs the magnetic measurements.”).
As to [claim 8], Yang discloses the method of Claim 1.
Yang further discloses wherein one or more of the second magnetic measurements in one or more of the second trajectories were collected by the magnetic-measurement device or one or more other magnetic-measurement devices (see, Paragraph [0049]: “FIG. 12 illustrates another example of a method 1200 for magnetic mapping in accordance with one or more aspects of the disclosure. A computing device that can implement the subject example method can include an electronic device ( e.g., electronic device 210 or computing device 1410) including one or more magnetic sensors, one or more inertial sensors, one or more memory devices, and one or more processors functionally coupled to at least one of the memory device(s).”).
Regarding [claim 9], recites analogous limitations that are present in claim 1, therefore claim 9
would be rejected for the same/similar premise above.
As to [claim 10], recites analogous limitations that are present in claim 2, therefore claim 10
would be rejected for the same/similar premise above.
As to [claim 11], recites analogous limitations that are present in claim 3, therefore claim 11 would be rejected for the same/similar premise above.
As to [claim 12], recites analogous limitations that are present in claim 4, therefore claim 12
would be rejected for the same/similar premise above.
As to [claim 13], recites analogous limitations that are present in claim 5, therefore claim 13
would be rejected for the same/similar premise above.
As to [claim 14], recites analogous limitations that are present in claim 6, therefore claim 14
would be rejected for the same/similar premise above.
As to [claim 15], recites analogous limitations that are present in claim(s) 1, therefore claim 15 would be rejected for the same/similar premise above.
As to [claim 16], recites analogous limitations that are present in claim 2, therefore claim 16 would be rejected for the same/similar premise above.
As to [claim 17], recites analogous limitations that are present in claim 3, therefore claim 17
would be rejected for the same/similar premise above.
As to [claim 18], recites analogous limitations that are present in claim 4, therefore claim 18
would be rejected for the same/similar premise above.
As to [claim 19], recites analogous limitations that are present in claim 5, therefore claim 19
would be rejected for the same/similar premise above.
As to [claim 20], recites analogous limitations that are present in claim 6, therefore claim 20
would be rejected for the same/similar premise above.
Regarding [claim 21], recites analogous limitations that are present in claim(s) 1 and 15,
therefore claim 21 would be rejected for the same/similar premise above.
As to [claim 22], Yang discloses the method of Claim 1.
Yang further discloses wherein: the first time is after one or more of the second times; or the first time is before one or more of the second times (see, Paragraph [0020]: “The information indicative or representative of the orientation of the electronic device 210 can be utilized or otherwise leveraged to transform the readings indicative or otherwise representative of the magnetic field in the sensor reference frame to three magnetic components in the Earth coordinate system. As such, in the example embodiment 230, the electronic device 210 can include a location sensing unit 248 that can utilize orientational measurements from the inertial sensor 250 to transform one or more readings from the magnetic sensor in the sensor coordinate system to respective one or more components in the Earth reference frame”; [0028] FIG. 3B for two different measurement instances—conveyed with traces 360 and 370; [0039] The example magnetic measurements in FIG. 4 include measurements performed while traversing substantially the same trajectory in opposite directions. ).
As to [claim 23], Yang discloses the method of Claim 4.
Yang further discloses wherein each of one or more of the magnetic measurements comprises one or more of: a total value of a magnetic field (see, Paragraph [0028]); an inclination angle of the magnetic field; a declination angle of the magnetic field (see, Paragraph [0029]: “in one example, implementation of the location determination stage 120 can include performance of one or more magnetic measurements at a ground-truth location, and analysis of the magnetic measurement(s) based at least on a magnetic footprint that is generated or otherwise made available via the magnetic mapping stage 110. In one embodiment, a magnetic sensor ( e.g., magnetic sensor 260) integrated into or functionally coupled to an electronic device (e.g., electronic device 210) that performs the location determination stage 120 can performs the magnetic measurements. In one example, the analysis of the magnetic measurement( s) can include a comparison of the one or more magnetic measurements with respect to magnetic metrics representative or otherwise indicative of the magnetic footprint. A location estimate of a ground-truth location can be determined based at least on such a comparison. In one embodiment, a location sensing unit (such as location sensing unit 248) integrated into or functionally coupled to the electronic device that performs the location determination stage 120 can perform such an analysis and/or determine such a location estimate”); an x component of the magnetic field; a y component of the magnetic field; or a z component of the magnetic field (see, Paragraphs [0019]: “As an illustration, FIG. 2A presents an example environment 218 in which an electronic device 210 can traverse a path 214 while performing a measurement of the magnetic field at certain locations (represented with solid dots) within the path 214. In one example, each location may be represented by a position vector r=(x,y,z) in the Earth coordinate system (represented with a Cartesian coordinate system), where x and y represent in-plane coordinates of the location, and the z coordinate represents elevation in a direction that is aligned with the direction of gravity. The electronic device 210 can communicate information acquired via the measurements to one or more network(s) 220. In one aspect, at least a portion of such information can convey a magnetic metric for each of the locations in the path 214, where the magnetic metric is representative or otherwise indicative of the magnetic field at a respective location”; [0020]: “The information indicative or representative of the orientation of the electronic device 210 can be utilized or otherwise leveraged to transform the readings indicative or otherwise representative of the magnetic field in the sensor reference frame to three magnetic components in the Earth coordinate system. As such, in the example embodiment 230, the electronic device 210 can include a location sensing unit 248 that can utilize orientational measurements from the inertial sensor 250 to transform one or more readings from the magnetic sensor in the sensor coordinate system to respective one or more components in the Earth reference frame” and [0021]: “the disclosure permits to select the type of information, e.g., scalar magnetic metric or two-dimensional vector magnetic metric, that can be utilized or otherwise relied on during a location stage (e.g., stage 120) based at least on two operational states of the electronic device (e.g., electronic device 210 in FIG. 2A) for which an estimate of the location is being determined or otherwise tracked. Such a selection can be dynamic and can be effected in response to time-dependent changes in at least one of the two operational states.”).
As to [claim 24], Yang discloses the media of Claim 9, (see Paragraph [0063]), Yang further discloses wherein the magnetic-measurement device comprises the system (see, Paragraph [0070]: “It should be recognized that while the functionality instructions storage 1434 and other executable program components, such as the operating system instruction(s) 1442, are illustrated herein as discrete blocks, such software components can reside at various times in different memory components of the computing device 1410, and can be executed by at least one of the processor(s) 1414. In certain scenarios, an implementation of the location sensing component(s) 1436 can be retained on or transmitted across some form of computer readable media.”; see also [0048] Fig. 11).
As to [claim 25], Yang discloses the media of Claim 9.
Yang further discloses wherein one or more of the second magnetic measurements in one or more of the second trajectories were collected by the magnetic- measurement device or one or more other magnetic-measurement devices (see, Paragraph [0049]: “FIG. 12 illustrates another example of a method 1200 for magnetic mapping in accordance with one or more aspects of the disclosure. A computing device that can implement the subject example method can include an electronic device ( e.g., electronic device 210 or computing device 1410) including one or more magnetic sensors, one or more inertial sensors, one or more memory devices, and one or more processors functionally coupled to at least one of the memory device(s).”; [0028]: “FIG. 3B for two different measurement instances—conveyed with traces 360 and 370; [0039] The example magnetic measurements in FIG. 4 include measurements performed while traversing substantially the same trajectory in opposite directions.)
As to [claim 26], Yang discloses the media of Claim 9.
Yang further discloses further wherein: the first time is after one or more of the second times; or the first time is before one or more of the second times (see, Paragraph [0020]: “The information indicative or representative of the orientation of the electronic device 210 can be utilized or otherwise leveraged to transform the readings indicative or otherwise representative of the magnetic field in the sensor reference frame to three magnetic components in the Earth coordinate system. As such, in the example embodiment 230, the electronic device 210 can include a location sensing unit 248 that can utilize orientational measurements from the inertial sensor 250 to transform one or more readings from the magnetic sensor in the sensor coordinate system to respective one or more components in the Earth reference frame”).
As to [claim 27], recites analogous limitations that are present in claim(s) 23, therefore claim 27 would be rejected for the same/similar premise above.
As to [claim 28], recites analogous limitations that are present in claim(s) 24, therefore claim 28 would be rejected for the same/similar premise above.
As to [claim 29], recites analogous limitations that are present in claim(s) 25, therefore claim 29 would be rejected for the same/similar premise above.
As to [claim 30], recites analogous limitations that are present in claim(s) 26, therefore claim 30 would be rejected for the same/similar premise above.
As to [claim 31], recites analogous limitations that are present in claim(s) 27, therefore claim 31 would be rejected for the same/similar premise above.
Prior Art Cited
De Stefano et al. (Pub. No.: US 2013/0085731) discloses methods and computing systems for multiple-domain inversion are disclosed to enhance subsurface region evaluation. In one embodiment, three or more datasets corresponding to a subterranean region are received, wherein at least one of the datasets is a magnetic dataset; and the three or more datasets are jointly inverted to generate at least a velocity model that corresponds to at least a first part of the subterranean region, and a susceptibility model that corresponds to at least the first part of the subterranean region, wherein the velocity model and the susceptibility model are correlated.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAKARI UNDERWOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-8462. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:00 TO 4:30.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached (571) 272-9855. 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.
/B.U./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ABBY J FLYNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663