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 .
The current application is CON. of application No. 17/494431 (Pat. No. 11428532) & 17/348561. The application relates a provisional application No. 63/210411 & 63/040352 filed on Jun. 17, 2020.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Applicant's amendment/arguments filed 08/06/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claimed amendment: Applicant stated at page 9-10 of the Applicant’s Argument/Remark that the claimed amendments are supported by the p24, 27, and etc. Examiner reviewed the application’s specification and drawing which describe the magnetic navigation system (as shown in Fig. 1B and through the specification) that process the method steps of the claim. The claims’ limitation of “magnetic-measurement device” is not shown in the application’s specification and drawing. Therefore, raises 112 (b) rejection and drawing Objection.
Regarding the 101 Rejection:
At page 10, Applicant submitted that a human mind, by itself is incapable of performing “measuring a geomagnetic field …”, “storing the localization information associated with the magnetic measurements in a memory of the magnetic measurement device”.
At page 10- 11, Applicant submitted that a full eligibility analysis is not needed for claims 1-37 cause the claims are clearly a practical application and as a whole clearly improve magnetic mapping.
Examiner Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The current claims (e.g., independent claims 1, 13, 25 & 37) claim method steps of “measure a geomagnetic field to produce one or more magnetic measurements in association with a position and trajectory of the magnetic-measurement device”; “determine a velocity of the magnetic- measurement device”; “generate localization information for the magnetic-measurement device based at least in part on the velocity of the magnetic- measurement device”; “store the localization information associated with the magnetic measurements in a memory of the magnetic-measurement device”; and “communicate the localization information and the magnetic measurements for incorporation into a geomagnetic map” which are done by a simple “magnetic-measurement device”, “apparatus”, and “a computer” with generic processor and memory.
The claims do not provide how and what manner the geomagnetic field is measured and determined. The function steps of measuring, determining, generating, storing, and communicating which a human enables to think and using pen and paper to write them down. The “magnetic-measurement device” is simply stated in the application’s abstract and claims but is not described in the application’s specification and drawings and the simple and generic components of apparatus, computer, and device. Therefore, the claims as a whole are directed abstract ideas, not a practical application and not improving in the map technology. See the updated 101 Rejection below for detailing how the analysis steps indicating the claims’ subject matter is not eligible 101.
Regarding the 103 rejection: Applicant argues at page 20-21 that Ivanov does not teach a geomagnetic map, a magnetic measure device or magnetic measurements. Examiner disagrees. It is known that magnetic fields are defined in terms of strength, intensity, direction and shape.
Ivanov teaches at [0040] that a mobile device, a smart phone, or a vehicular system detecting an intensity of light emitted form sources for obtaining information indicating of a variation of the intensity, and at [0049] teaches that the map data relates to the determined position of the device via satellites, information indicative of the variation in intensity in case the GNSS signal unavailable, information indicative of velocity of the device which is equivalent of the geomagnetic map. Wherein the information with the variation in intensity are the measurement data of magnetic.
Examiner still remains the rejection.
Drawings Objection
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
There is not any drawing that represents “a magnetic-measurement device” with the function steps of the claims 1-37. Therefore, the “a method comprising: by a magnetic-measurement device …”, wherein the “magnetic-measurement device” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
The current application’s drawings have shown in Fig.1B for a magnetic navigation device which relates to the functions steps of the current application’s claims. Thus, the device and the function steps are not properly shown.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1-37 are 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 1, e.g., the language, “a method comprising: by a magnetic -measurement device”, that is indefinite because it claims both a device and method steps. (See MPEP 2173.05 (p) (II), “Product and Process in the Same Claim”).
Claims 13 & 25 has the same issue as claim 1 above.
Claim 25, recites “an apparatus … comprises one or more processor; and one or more computer-readable non-transitory storage … when executed by the processor to: by a magnetic-measurement device, measure …” that is unclear whether the function steps are processed by the “magnetic measurement device” or by the “processor”?
Claim 37 is indefinite since Applicant asserts that the claim element “a system comprising: means for measuring a geomagnetic field …of a magnetic-measurement device; means for determining a velocity of the magnetic measurement device; …means for storing the location .. in a memory of the magnetic measurement device” that do not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 6th paragraph because “means” for supposedly performing the claimed function without reciting of structure or material described in the specification (see MPEP 2181(I) for 3-prong analysis for Means-type Claims).
In addition, the application’s specification fails to clearly link or associate the disclosed structure such as the “magnetic-measurement device” and an apparatus.
If applicant does not wish to have the claim limitation treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 6th Paragraph, Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 USC 112, sixth paragraph; or
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that that is clearly links or associates the corresponding structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 USC 132(a)); or
(c) State on the record where the corresponding structure, material, or acts are set forth in the written description of the specification and linker or associated to the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 2-12, 14-24 & 26-36 depend upon rejected claims above.
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 1-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent Claims 1, 13, 25 & 37:
Claim 1. A method comprising:
by a magnetic-measurement device, collecting measuring a geomagnetic field to produce one or more magnetic measurements in association with a position and trajectory of the magnetic-measurement device;
by the magnetic-measurement device, determining a velocity of the magnetic- measurement device;
by the magnetic-measurement device, generating localization information for the magnetic-measurement device based at least in part on the velocity of the magnetic- measurement device;
by the magnetic-measurement device, storing the localization information associated with the magnetic measurements in a memory of the magnetic- measurement device; and
by the magnetic-measurement device, communicating the localization information and the magnetic measurements for incorporation into a geomagnetic map.
Claim 13. One or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media embodying software that is operable when executed to:
by a magnetic-measurement device, measure a geomagnetic field to produce one or more magnetic measurements in association with a position and trajectory of the magnetic-measurement device;
by the magnetic-measurement device, determine a velocity of the magnetic- measurement device;
by the magnetic-measurement device, generate localization information for the magnetic-measurement device based at least in part on the velocity of the magnetic- measurement device;
by the magnetic-measurement device, store the localization information associated with the magnetic measurements in a memory of the magnetic-measurement device; and
by the magnetic-measurement device, communicate the localization information and the magnetic measurements for incorporation into a geomagnetic map.
Claim 25. An apparatus for incorporating one or more regional magnetic data sets into a master geomagnetic map, wherein the apparatus comprises:
one or more processors; and
one or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media coupled to the processors that embody software that is operable when executed by the processors to:
by a magnetic-measurement device, measure a geomagnetic field to produce one or more magnetic measurements in association with a position and trajectory of the magnetic-measurement device;
by the magnetic-measurement device, determine a velocity of the magnetic- measurement device;
by the magnetic-measurement device, generate localization information for the magnetic-measurement device based at least in part on the velocity of the magnetic-measurement device;
by the magnetic-measurement device, associated with the magnetic measurements in a memory of the apparatus; and
by the magnetic-measurement device, communicate the localization information and the magnetic measurements for incorporation into a geomagnetic map.
Claim 37. A system comprising:
means for measuring a geomagnetic field to produce one or more magnetic measurements in association with a position and trajectory of a magnetic- measurement device;
means for determining a velocity of the magnetic-measurement device;
means for generating localization information for the magnetic-measurement device based at least in part on the velocity of the magnetic-measurement device;
means for storing the localization information associated with the magnetic measurements in a memory of the magnetic-measurement device; and
means for communicating the localization information and the magnetic measurements for incorporation into a geomagnetic map.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claims above recite a method and system including at least one step. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes and mathematical concept.
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mathematical concepts” & “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” with mathematical concepts. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
The claims recite the limitation of “measure a geomagnetic field to produce one or more magnetic measurements in association with a position and trajectory of the magnetic-measurement device”; “determine a velocity of the magnetic- measurement device”; “generate localization information for the magnetic-measurement device based at least in part on the velocity of the magnetic- measurement device”; “store the localization information associated with the magnetic measurements in a memory of the magnetic-measurement device”; and “communicate the localization information and the magnetic measurements for incorporation into a geomagnetic map”.
. This limitation, as drafted, are simple processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and mathematical concepts but for the recitation of “by a magnetic measurement device”. That is, other than reciting “by a magnetic measurement device” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by a magnetic measurement device” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected, calculate with the collected information and simply communicating (transmitting) the information. The mere nominal recitation of by “by a magnetic measurement device” does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application – No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites additional elements, for the function steps above, such as “one or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media (in claim 13), an apparatus comprises one or more processors, and one or more computer (in claim 25), and a system with means functions in claim 37 which are generic components and generic computer of insignificant extra-solution
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept – No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic apparatus with generic computer components. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that the additional elements (“one or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media (in claim 13), an apparatus comprises one or more processors, and one or more computer (in claim 25), and a system with means functions in claim 37) are insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the determining, measuring, generating, storing and communicating steps were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification (in drawings section, and the detailed section) do not provide any indication that the “magnetic-measurement device” processes those claims’ function steps. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Accordingly, a conclusion that the determining, measuring, generating, storing and communicating steps are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims(s) 2-12, 14-24 & 26-36 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-12, 14-24 & 26-36 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of 1, 13, 25 & 37.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-37 is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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(s) 1-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breed (20070005609) in view of Ivanov (20210102968).
With regard to claim 1, Breed discloses a method comprising:
by a magnetic-measurement device, measuring a geomagnetic field to produce one or more magnetic measurements in association with a position and trajectory of the magnetic-measurement device (vehicle 18 (Fig.3) includes a system such as Fig.4 & Fig.5, which collects information (data from the inertial reference unit which contains accelerometers and laser or MEMS gyroscopes) association with position and trajectory, see [0137]+ & [0561]+ and measuring magnetic measurement associated with the vehicle’s location and direction, see [0269]+);
by the magnetic-measurement device, determining a velocity of the magnetic-measurement device (the sensors of the system determines vehicle velocity, see [0218]+);
by the magnetic-measurement device, generating localization information for the magnetic-measurement device based at least in part on the velocity of the magnetic-measurement device (locating a local precise location of the vehicle, see [0227]+) ;
by the magnetic-measurement device, storing the localization information associated with the magnetic measurements in a memory of the magnetic-measurement device (memory 84 stores the measurement information, see [0589]+),
communicating the geomagnetic map (vehicle’s information communicates with the server system using wireless communication, see [0065] & for map updated, see [0215]+) .
Breed fails to teach the geomagnetic map is incorporation of the localization information and the magnetic measurement.
Ivanov discloses a method/system which provides a geomagnetic map that incorporates the localization information and the magnetic measurement (the map data relates to the determined position of the device via satellites, information indicative of the variation in intensity in case the GNSS signal unavailable, information indicative of velocity of the device, see [0049]+)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Breed by including the geomagnetic map by incorporating the localization information and the magnetic measurement as taught by Ivanov for providing map with more information for safety driving performance.
With regard to 2, Breed teaches that the method of Claim 1, wherein the localization information and the magnetic measurements are communicated to a server (local precise location is communicated to server, [0227] & [0231]+) .
With regard to 3, Breed teaches that the method of Claim 2, wherein the server is a mapping server or a regional server (see [0454]+).
With regard to 4, Ivanov teaches that the method of Claim 3, wherein the server is colocated at least in part with the magnetic- measurement device (obtaining the information indicative of the map in combination with information, see [0066]+).
With regard to 5, Ivanov teaches that the method of Claim 1, further comprising incorporating into the geomagnetic map the localization information and the magnetic measurements (see [0066]-[0067]+).
With regard to 6, Breed teaches that the method of Claim 5, wherein the localization information and the magnetic measurements are incorporated into the geomagnetic map by the magnetic-measurement device (the data gathered a large amount of information at each vehicle and communicated to the data facility, see [0505]+).
With regard to 7, Breed teaches that the method of Claim 5, wherein the localization information and the magnetic measurements are incorporated into the geomagnetic map by a server (the data facility in the server gathers large amount of information, see [0505]-[0506]+).
With regard to 8, Ivanov teaches that the method of Claim 1, wherein:the method further comprises determining that localization by the magnetic-measurement device using a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) is unavailable (detecting when the GNSS satellite signal reception is poor or unavailable, see [047]+); and the velocity of the magnetic-measurement device is determined and the localization information is generated based at least in part on the velocity of the magnetic-measurement device in response to localization by the magnetic-measurement device using the GNSS being unavailable (see at least [0142]-[0143]+).
With regard to 9, Breed teaches that the method of Claim 1, wherein the velocity of the magnetic-measurement device is determined, at least in part, using an inertial measurement unit (IM) of the magnetic- measurement device (the vehicle generally has an IMU, see [0213]+).
With regard to 10, Breed teaches that the method of Claim 1, wherein the velocity of the magnetic-measurement device is determined, at least in part, by dead reckoning (Dead reckoning using vehicle speed, see [0219]+).
With regard to 11, Breed teaches that the method of Claim 1, wherein the magnetic-measurement device is one or more of a mobile phone, an automotive navigation system, a marine navigation system, an aerial navigation system, a drone, a robot, or a forklift (the system is used for the mobile device, automotive navigation, automatic vehicle, and etc., see the summary section).
With regard to 12, Breed teaches that the method of Claim 1, wherein the velocity of the magnetic-measurement device is determined, at least in part, using one or more of the magnetic measurements (see [0119]+).
With regard to claim 13, Breed discloses one or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media embodying software that is operable when executed to:
by a magnetic-measurement device, measure a geomagnetic field to produce one or more magnetic measurements in association with a position and trajectory of the magnetic-measurement device (vehicle 18 (Fig.3) includes a system such as Fig.4 & Fig.5, which collects information association with position and trajectory, see [0137]+ & [0561]+);
by the magnetic-measurement device, determining a velocity of the magnetic-measurement device (the sensors of the system determines vehicle velocity, see [0218]+);
by the magnetic-measurement device, generating localization information for the magnetic-measurement device based at least in part on the velocity of the magnetic-measurement device (locating a local precise location of the vehicle, see [0227]+) ;
by the magnetic-measurement device, store the localization information associated with the magnetic measurements in a memory of the magnetic-measurement device (memory 84 stores the measurement information, see [0589]+),
communicating the geomagnetic map (vehicle’s information communicates with the server system using wireless communication, see [0065] & for map updated, see [0215]+) .
Breed fails to teach the geomagnetic map is incorporation of the localization information and the magnetic measurement.
Ivanov discloses a method/system which provides a geomagnetic map that incorporates the localization information and the magnetic measurement (the map data relates to the determined position of the device via satellites, information indicative of the variation in intensity in case the GNSS signal unavailable, information indicative of velocity of the device, see [0049]+)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Breed by including the geomagnetic map by incorporating the localization information and the magnetic measurement as taught by Ivanov for providing map with more information for safety driving performance.
With regard to claim 14, Breed teaches that the media of Claim 13, wherein the localization information and the magnetic measurements are communicated to a server (local precise location is communicated to server, [0227] & [0231]+) .
With regard to 15, Breed teaches that the media of Claim 14, wherein the server is a mapping server or a regional server (see [0454]+).
With regard to 16, Ivanov teaches that the method of Claim 15, wherein the server is collocated at least in part with the magnetic-measurement device (obtaining the information indicative of the map in combination with information, see [0066]+).
With regard to 17, Ivanov teaches that the media of Claim 13, wherein the software is further operable when executed to incorporate into the geomagnetic map the localization information and the magnetic measurements (see [0066]-[0067]+).
With regard to 18, Breed teaches that the media of Claim 17, wherein the localization information and the magnetic measurements are incorporated into the geomagnetic map by the magnetic-measurement device (the data gathered a large amount of information at each vehicle and communicated to the data facility, see [0505]+).
With regard to 19, Breed teaches that the media Claim 17, wherein the localization information and the magnetic measurements are incorporated into the geomagnetic map by a server (the data facility in the server gathers large amount of information, see [0505]-[0506]+).
With regard to 20, Ivanov teaches that the media of Claim 13, wherein: the software is further operable when executed to determine that localization by the magnetic-measurement device using a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) is unavailable; and the velocity of the magnetic-measurement device is determined and the localization information is generated based at least in part on the velocity of the magnetic-measurement device in response to localization by the magnetic-measurement device using the GNSS being unavailable (detecting when the GNSS satellite signal reception is poor or unavailable, see [047]+ & [0142]-[0143]+).
With regard to 21, Breed teaches that the media of Claim 13, wherein the velocity of the magnetic-measurement device is determined, at least in part, using an inertial measurement unit (IM) of the magnetic- measurement device (the vehicle generally has an IMU, see [0213]+).
With regard to 22, Breed teaches that the media of Claim 13, wherein the velocity of the magnetic-measurement device is determined, at least in part, by dead reckoning (Dead reckoning using vehicle speed, see [0219]+).
With regard to 23, Breed teaches that the media of Claim 13, wherein the magnetic-measurement device is one or more of a mobile phone, an automotive navigation system, a marine navigation system, an aerial navigation system, a drone, a robot, or a forklift (the system is used for the mobile device, automotive navigation, automatic vehicle, and etc., see the summary section).
With regard to 24, Breed teaches that the media of Claim 13, wherein the velocity of the magnetic-measurement device is determined, at least in part, using one or more of the magnetic measurements (see [0119]+).
With regard to claims 25 & 37, Breed discloses an apparatus for incorporating one or more regional magnetic data sets into a master geomagnetic map, wherein the apparatus comprises: one or more processors; and one or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media coupled to the processors (see Fig.4 & Fig.5 which has a center processor 100, and etc.) that embody software that is operable when executed by the processors to:
by a magnetic-measurement device, measure a geomagnetic field to produce one or more magnetic measurements in association with a position and trajectory of the magnetic-measurement device (vehicle 18 (Fig.3) includes a system such as Fig.4 & Fig.5, which collects information association with position and trajectory, see [0137]+ & [0561]+);
by the magnetic-measurement device, determining a velocity of the magnetic-measurement device (the sensors of the system determines vehicle velocity, see [0218]+);
by the magnetic-measurement device, generating localization information for the magnetic-measurement device based at least in part on the velocity of the magnetic-measurement device (locating a local precise location of the vehicle, see [0227]+) ;
by the magnetic-measurement device, storing the localization information associated with the magnetic measurements in a memory of the apparatus (memory 84 stores the measurement information, see [0589]+),
communicating the geomagnetic map (vehicle’s information communicates with the server system using wireless communication, see [0065] & for map updated, see [0215]+) .
Breed fails to teach the geomagnetic map is incorporation of the localization information and the magnetic measurement.
Ivanov discloses a method/system which provides a geomagnetic map that incorporates the localization information and the magnetic measurement (the map data relates to the determined position of the device via satellites, information indicative of the variation in intensity in case the GNSS signal unavailable, information indicative of velocity of the device, see [0049]+)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Breed by including the geomagnetic map by incorporating the localization information and the magnetic measurement as taught by Ivanov for providing map with more information for safety driving performance.
With regard to claim 26, Breed teaches that the media of Claim 25, wherein the localization information and the magnetic measurements are communicated to a server (local precise location is communicated to server, [0227] & [0231]+) .
With regard to claim 27, Breed teaches that the media of Claim 26, wherein the server is a mapping server or a regional server (see [0454]+).
With regard to claim 28, Ivanov teaches that the method of Claim 27, wherein the server is colocated at least in part with the magnetic-measurement device (obtaining the information indicative of the map in combination with information, see [0066]+).
With regard to claim 29, Ivanov teaches that the media of Claim 25, wherein the software is further operable when executed to incorporate into the geomagnetic map the localization information and the magnetic measurements (see [0066]-[0067]+).
With regard to claim 30, Breed teaches that the media of Claim 29, wherein the localization information and the magnetic measurements are incorporated into the geomagnetic map by the magnetic-measurement device (the data gathered a large amount of information at each vehicle and communicated to the data facility, see [0505]+).
With regard to claim 31, Breed teaches that the media Claim 29, wherein the localization information and the magnetic measurements are incorporated into the geomagnetic map by a server (the data facility in the server gathers large amount of information, see [0505]-[0506]+).
With regard to claim 32, Ivanov teaches that the media of Claim 25, wherein:the software is further operable when executed to determine that localization by the magnetic-measurement device using a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) is unavailable; and the velocity of the magnetic-measurement device is determined and the localization information is generated based at least in part on the velocity of the magnetic-measurement device in response to localization by the magnetic-measurement device using the GNSS being unavailable (detecting when the GNSS satellite signal reception is poor or unavailable, see [047]+, [0142]-[0143]+).
With regard to claim 33, Breed teaches that the media of Claim 25, wherein the velocity of the magnetic-measurement device is determined, at least in part, using an inertial measurement unit (IMU) of the magnetic- measurement device (the vehicle generally has an IMU, see [0213]+).
With regard to claim 34, Breed teaches that the media of Claim 25, wherein the velocity of the magnetic-measurement device is determined, at least in part, by dead reckoning (Dead reckoning using vehicle speed, see [0219]+).
With regard to claim 35, Breed teaches that the media of Claim 25, wherein the magnetic-measurement device is one or more of a mobile phone, an automotive navigation system, a marine navigation system, an aerial navigation system, a drone, a robot, or a forklift (the system is used for the mobile device, automotive navigation, automatic vehicle, and etc., see the summary section).
With regard to claim 36, Breed teaches that the media of Claim 25, wherein the velocity of the magnetic-measurement device is determined, at least in part, using one or more of the magnetic measurements (see [0119]+).
Prior Arts Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kim (20140180589) discloses a system for generating magnetic field map for database construction (see the abstract).
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 NGA X NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5217. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30AM - 2:30PM.
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, JELANI SMITH can be reached on 571-270-3969. 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.
NGA X. NGUYEN
Examiner
Art Unit 3662
/NGA X NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662