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 .
This office action is in response to applicant’s RCE with amendment/remarks filed 06/08/2026. Claims 1, 5, 8, 13, 21, 24, 31, and 34 have been amended. No claims have been cancelled and no claims have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-34 are pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/08/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pages 8-10 filed 06/08/2026 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant discloses that the contention that the rationale of Example 40 does not apply because “magnetic maps and updating magnetic maps is common in the field” is incorrect, and that the fact that magnetic maps and updating magnetic maps is “common in the field” does not preclude the claimed invention from being directed to a particular improvement in that field that integrates any recited judicial exception into a practical application. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Recording sensor data into a memory and storing the measurements, and any other limitations in the claims do not recite a practical application. A practical application would resemble a vehicle that uses those stored measurement to control a vehicle to use its actuators to travel along a path. Merely incorporating measurements into a map and recording/storing these measurements do not recite a practical application.
Additionally, the applicant discloses that the claim as a whole is directed to a particular improvement in magnetic mapping. The examiner respectfully disagrees. As a whole, the claims are geared towards taking magnetic measurements, incorporating them onto a map, and storing them in memory. In the previous remarks (filed 08/01/2025), the applicant disclosed that “magnetic maps can be regularly updated with increasingly accurate information as increasing numbers of magnetic navigation devices obtain field measurements along the path and transmit new information to the system’s servers”, “utilize a large number of magnetic measurements captured using less precise magnetic sensor to build highly reliable and accurate magnetic maps with improved resolution” and “in the event that the device loses line of sight with a control unit, the device can use the map to retrace the path back to the control unit which improves navigation without the need for line or sight or a reliable network/ GNSS connection”. However, none of these are incorporated in the claims. The independent claims do not recite the aggregation step or the sensor plurality in a functional way. The claims do not recite the update process and its effect on map accuracy/resolution. The claims do not recite how a large number of measurements improve reliability (i.e. in contrary, the claim recites “at least one magnetometer in a mobile device”). The claims do not recite an improved resolution as an outcome, and the claims do not recite an event where the device loses line of sight with a control unit. The independent claims do not capture the improvement as a whole, and are not directed to a practical application (e.g. what are they doing with the stored magnetic measurements?).
With regards to example 40 of the USPTO provided 35 U.S.C. 101 examples, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The practical application in example 40 includes improved network monitoring based on the claim limitation “collecting additional traffic data relating to the network traffic when the collected traffic data is greater than the predefined threshold”. This is a clear improvement since it results in improved network monitoring based on a threshold being set. The improvement is captured in the claim itself, since it limits collection of additional NetFlow protocol data when the initially collected data reflects an abnormal condition, which avoids excess traffic volume on the network and hindrance of network performance. Example 40 captures an improvement in the claims and the claims as a whole integrates the mental process into a practical application. A similar improvement is not captured in the present application, since it merely senses magnetic measurements, incorporates them into a magnetic field map, records the measurements into a map, and stores them. These claims do not capture an improvement as a whole and does not integrate the mental process into a practical application.
With regards to example 42 of the USPTO provided 35 U.S.C. 101 examples, the examiner respectfully disagrees with the same rational as provided in example 40 above. The specific improvement in example 42 allows remote users to share information in real time in a standardized format regardless of the format in which the information was input by the user, wherein this specific improvement is captured in the claims. A similar improvement is not captured in the present application, and therefore the claims in the present invention do not integrate the mental process into a practical application.
With regards to example 45 of the USPTO provided 35 U.S.C. 101 examples, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The practical application in claim 2 of example 45 is from the claim limitation “send control signals to the injection molding apparatus once the polyurethane has reached a target percentage, the control signals instructing the apparatus to open the mold and eject the molded polyurethane from the mold”. The apparatus is physically opened to eject the molded polyurethane from the mold. This is a clear practical application since the claim adds a meaningful limitation in that it employs the information provided by the judicial exceptions (the calculated percentage of the extent of cure) to control the operation of the injection molding apparatus. As explained in Example 45, because the claimed controller opens the mold and ejects the molded polyurethane at the time when the target percentage of cure is reached, the claimed controller avoids the technical problems associated with under-cure and over-cure, which would otherwise negatively affect the cured polyurethane’s strength and wear performance. In contrast to this application, this type of improvement is not captured by the claims. Claim 2 of Example 45 captures the improvement in the claim itself, while the independents claims of this application do not. The claims do not use the stored magnetic measurements to do anything practical. They are merely capturing, incorporating, and storing data. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection remains.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 11-12 filed 06/08/2026 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant discloses that the primary reference He teaches away from the claimed invention, since the LBS feature map in He is merely “updated by using the sensor data” and not updated with the sensor data itself. The applicant further discloses that the LBS feature map in HE is updated by using the sensor data as an input to a process that produces observations, which are then associated with keys and types to form the LBS feature map and that the sensor data itself is not incorporated into the LBS feature map. Additionally, the applicant discloses that “the collected sensor data is analyzed to obtain observations as the LBS features”, which further teaches that the sensor data is itself not incorporated into the LBS feature map.
However, this is not incorporated in the claims. The independent claims recite “incorporating the magnetic measurements into a magnetic-field map”, which is a very broad limitation, and includes updating using the sensor data. The sensor data is incorporated into the magnetic map since they are used as input. Para. 0099 of He discloses, “The processing structure 122 also uses the collected sensor data to update the LBS feature map 142”, which directly reads on “incorporating the magnetic measurements into a magnetic-field map”. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection remains, since the limitation remains broad, and the primary reference He broadly discloses this limitation.
Claim Objections
Claims 8 and 24 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 8 and 24 recite “augmented- or virtual-reality device” but should read “augmented or virtual-reality device”. The dash behind “augmented” should be removed. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. With respect to independent claims 1 and 17, the claims recite “taking magnetic measurements as the mobile device traverses a path, wherein the magnetic measurements correspond to positions of the mobile device along the path”, and “incorporating the magnetic measurements into a magnetic map, and recording in a memory the magnetic measurements as incorporated into the magnetic-field map”. Since these limitations can be done mentally, they are directed towards an abstract idea.
The limitations recited above is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by a magnetic-measurement device” (as recited in independent claim 1) or “by a magnetic-sensor system” (as recited in independent claim 17), nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, regarding independent claims 1 and 17, the limitation “taking magnetic measurements as the mobile device traverses a path, wherein the magnetic measurements correspond to positions of the mobile device along the path” and “incorporating the magnetic measurements into a magnetic-field map, and recording in a memory the magnetic measurements as incorporated into the magnetic-field map” in the context of the claim encompasses the user writing down magnetic measurements as the user is traversing a path. This can be done using a compass and writing down measurements while walking along a path. Since this limitation can be done using a pen and a paper, then this limitation falls within the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Regarding claims 2 and 18, the limitation “navigating or localizing by the processor based at least in part on the magnetic measurements” in the context of the claim encompasses the user using the magnetic measurements for localization. Since can be done by reading the recorded measurements and following the path using these measurements, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Regarding claims 3 and 19, the limitation “determining the positions corresponding to the magnetic measurements; and recording the positions with the magnetic measurements in the memory” in the context of the claim encompasses the user determining the position that corresponds to the magnetic measurements (i.e. the position that the measurements were recorded) and writing the positions down on a piece of paper. Since this limitation can be done by hand using previously recorded measurements, then the claims fall within the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding claims 4 and 20, the limitation, “wherein the positions are determined at least in part by dead reckoning using the magnetic measurements” in the context of the claim encompasses the user determining the positions by dead reckoning using the magnetic measurements. This can be done by retracing the user’s steps using the magnetic measurements and determining the positions by dead reckoning. Since this can be done mentally, then this limitation falls within the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding claims 5 and 21, the limitation, “wherein the positions are determined at least in part using inertial measurements taken by an inertial-navigation system (INS) of the device as the device traverses at least a portion of the path” in the context of the claim encompasses the user determining positions from collected information from an INS. Since this limitation can be done by determining the positions using a pen and paper, and from the sensor data collected from an INS. Therefore, this limitation falls within the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding claims 6 and 22, the limitation, “wherein the positions are determined at least in part using global navigation satellite system (GNSS) signals received by a GNSS receiver of the device as the device traverses at least a portion of the path” in the context of the claim encompasses the user determining position from collected information from a GNSS. Since this limitation can be done by determining the position using a pen and paper, and from the data collected from a GNSS, then this limitation falls within the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding claim 8 and 24, the limitation “wherein the apparatus is one or more of a mobile phone, unmanned aerial vehicle, personal digital assistant, server, tablet computer system, or augmented or virtual reality device” is recitation of generic computer components and does not recite any additional steps. Therefore, the abstract idea of the independent claims have not been affected and remains the same. Therefore, the claim recite an abstract ideas.
Regarding claims 7 and 23, the limitation, “wherein the positions are determined at least in part using wireless-communication signals received by a communication module of the device as the device traverses at least a portion of the path” in the context of the claim encompasses the user determining position from collected information from a communication module. Since this limitation can be done by determining the position using a pen and paper, and from the data collected from a communication module, then this limitation falls within the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding claims 9 and 25, the limitation, “wherein incorporating the magnetic measurements into the magnetic map comprises generating one or more portions of the magnetic map with at least some of the magnetic measurements” in the context of the claim encompasses the user drawing a magnetic map using the magnetic measurements and their corresponding positions. Since this limitation can be done by hand (i.e. drawing a map), then this limitation falls within the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding claims 10 and 26, the limitation, “wherein incorporating the magnetic measurements into the magnetic map comprises updating one or more portions of the magnetic map with at least some of the magnetic measurements” in the context of the claim encompasses the user drawing an updated magnetic map using the magnetic measurements and their corresponding positions. Since this limitation can be done by hand (i.e. drawing a map), then this limitation falls within the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding claims 12, the limitation “wherein the device comprises the mapping server ” is recitation of generic computer components and does not recite any additional steps. Therefore, the abstract idea of the independent claims have not been affected and remains the same. Therefore, the claim recite an abstract ideas.
Regarding claims 13 and 27, the limitation “wherein the magnetic map comprises one or more representations of one or more paths traversed by the device” in the context of the claim encompasses the user drawing paths that was traversed by the device. Therefore, the claim recite an abstract ideas.
Regarding claims 14 and 28, the limitation “wherein the magnetic-measurement device further comprises one or more of: a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) receiver; an inertial navigation system (INS); or a communication module” is recitation of generic computer components and does not recite any additional steps. The abstract idea of the independent claims have not been affected and remains the same. Therefore, the claim recite an abstract ideas.
Regarding claims 15 and 29, the limitation “navigating or localizing comprises re-traversing with the device at least a portion of the path using the magnetic measurements” in the context of the claim encompasses the user doing localization based on the magnetic measurements and re-traversing the path using the measurements. This can be done by drawing a map using the magnetic measurements and following the map, and going back to the magnetic measurements to navigate. Since this can be done by using a map, such that the user is able to navigate, then this limitation falls within the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding claims 16 and 30, the limitation “determining that one or more of the magnetic measurements are outside a predetermined range; and communicating a signal indicating that one or more of the magnetic measurements are outside the predetermined range to trigger a predetermined action” in the context of the claim encompasses the user looking at the magnetic measurements and determining if they are outside a predetermined range. If the user determines that they are, then they can use their voice to communicate a signal such that an action can be triggered. Since this limitation can be done by hand and by using their voice, then this limitation falls within the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Regarding claim 31, 33 and 34, the limitation “wherein the processor is integrated with the magnetometer” and “comprising the mapping server” is recitation of generic computer components and does not recite any additional steps. Therefore, the abstract idea of the independent claims have not been affected and remains the same. Therefore, the claim recite an abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites an additional element – using a processor to perform the recited steps. The “by a magnetic-measurement device” (as recited in independent claim 1) or “by a magnetic-sensor system” (as recited in independent claim 17), in the above steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Furthermore, claims 11 and 32 recites “communicating at least some of the magnetic measurements and corresponding positions to a computing device to be incorporated into one or more portions of a magnetic-field map”. This limitation is insignificant post-solution activity and does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a “ magnetic-measurement device” (as recited in independent claim 1) or “a magnetic-sensor system” (as recited in independent claim 17), to perform the recited steps amounts to 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. Furthermore, the step of “communicating at least some of the magnetic measurements and corresponding positions to a computing device to be incorporated into one or more portions of a magnetic map” is taught in the primary prior art reference He et al. US20180283882A1 in Para. 0144-0145, “The sensor data statistics on the node’s positions can be extracted and stored”. Accordingly, the step of communicating data to be incorporated on a map is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept and the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-15, 17-29, and 31-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by He et al. US20180283882A1 (henceforth He).
Regarding claim 1,
He discloses:
A method comprising: by at least one magnetometer in a mobile device (Para. 0015, “mobile object 108 is a vehicle” and “mobile object 108 is a device movable with a pedestrian”.), taking magnetic measurements as the mobile device traverses a path, wherein the magnetic measurements correspond to positions of the mobile device along the path;
(See Para. 0101, “At step 152, the processing structure 122 collects data from sensors 104 and 118. At step 154, the processing structure 122 analyzes the collected data to obtain navigation observations (or simply “observations”). The observations may be any suitable characteristics related to the movement of the movable object 108, and may be generally categorized as environmental observations such as points cloud, magnetic anomalies, barometer readings, and/or the like, along the movement path or trajectory of the movable object 108.” Magnetic measurements are taken as the device traverses a path, wherein the measurements correspond to positions of the device along the path.)
By at least one processor in the mobile device and coupled to the magnetometer:
Incorporating the magnetic measurements into a magnetic-field map; and in a memory, recording the magnetic measurements as incorporated into the magnetic-field map, wherein the memory is in the mobile device and coupled to the processor; and in the memory, storing the magnetic measurements as recorded
(See at least Fig. 6, Fig. 17 and Para. 0144, “FIG. 17 shows a region of the LBS feature map 142 with a portion of a skeleton 542 formed by nodes and links. The shaded areas in FIG. 17 represent a background heat-map showing the distribution of the magnetometer norm (i.e., anomalies mean) over the region. The dots and links respectively represent the nodes and links of the skeleton 542 generated with consideration of the spatial structure and the magnetometer observation distribution. The sensor data statistics on the nodes' positions can be extracted and store”. The magnetic map is shown in Fig. 17 and incorporates the magnetic measurements into a magnetic map.
Additionally, see Para. 0146, “ the system 100 accumulates and stores historical observations, and uses the accumulated historical observations for updating the LBS feature map as described above. In another embodiment, the system 100 does not accumulate historical observations. Rather, the system 100 uses a suitable pooled statistics method to process the current LBS feature map with current observations to update the LBS feature map.” Furthermore, see Para. 0124, “the LBS feature map 142 may be generated and/or updated by using the sensor data collected while a movable object 108 traverses the site 102. In particular, the collected sensor data is analyzed to obtain observations as the LBS features. The obtained LBS features are associated with respective keys and types to form the LBS feature map.” The magnetic measurements are incorporated into the magnetic map.)
Regarding claim 2,
He discloses:
Navigating or localizing by the processor based at least in part on the magnetic measurements.)
(See Para. 0237-0238, wherein a portion of the path is re-traversed (i.e. forwards or backwards) using the magnetic measurements, such that the measurements are compared along the path.)
Regarding claim 3,
He discloses:
determining the positions corresponding to the magnetic measurements; recording the positions with the magnetic measurements in the memory.
(See Para. 0144, “FIG. 17 shows a region of the LBS feature map 142 with a portion of a skeleton 542 formed by nodes and links. The shaded areas in FIG. 17 represent a background heat-map showing the distribution of the magnetometer norm (i.e., anomalies mean) over the region. The dots and links respectively represent the nodes and links of the skeleton 542 generated with consideration of the spatial structure and the magnetometer observation distribution. The sensor data statistics on the nodes' positions can be extracted and stored.” The positions of the magnetic measurements are determined and stored. Further see Para. 0028, wherein the features of the LBS feature map is stored in the memory.)
Regarding claim 4,
He discloses:
wherein positions are determined at least in part by dead reckoning using the magnetic measurements.
(See Para. 0227-0232, wherein magnetometers are used to provide an absolute heading for dead reckoning navigation solutions.)
Regarding claim 5,
He discloses:
wherein at least the positions are determined at least in part using inertial measurements taken by an inertial-navigation system (INS) in the device as the device traverses at least a portion of the path. (See Para. 0156, “the LBS-feature-map-based processing section 340, the processing structure 122 may use a location or (location, device) as the key 342 to obtain statistics of observations from the LBS feature map 142. For example, the processing structure 122 may extract a sensor error model 346A from the LBS feature map 142 using the above-described key, and process available IMU data 22A using an INS and/or PDR method and the extracted sensor error model 346A for updating the position/velocity/attitude 24A.“ The position is determined and updated using an INS sensor as the device traverses the path.)
Regarding claim 6,
He discloses:
wherein the positions are determined at least in part using global navigation satellite system (GNSS) signals received by a GNSS receiver in the device as the device traverses at least a portion of the path.
(See Para. 0019, “The sensors of the devices may or may not be calibrated or aligned, and the device or an object carrying the device may be stationary or moving. In some embodiments, the system and method disclosed herein may work with an absolute navigation system such as global navigation satellite systems (GNSS). In some other embodiments, the system and method may work without any absolute navigation systems. The systems and methods disclosed herein can provide improved indoor/outdoor seamless navigation solutions.” Wherein the position is determined in part using GNSS signals as the device traverses at least a portion of the path. Further see Para. 0083, wherein the survey sensors 118 may comprises GNSS receivers while traversing the path.)
Regarding claim 7,
He discloses:
wherein the positions are determined at least in part using wireless-communication signals received by a communication module in the device as the device traverses at least a portion of the path. (See Para. 0083, wherein GNSS signals are wireless-communication signals which are used as survey sensors 118 when traversing the path (see Para. 0101).)
Regarding claim 8,
He discloses:
wherein the device is one or more of a mobile phone, unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), personal digital assistant (PDA), server, tablet computer system, or augmented- or virtual-reality device
(See at least Para. 0087, “The one or more computing devices 106 may be one or more stand-alone computing devices, servers, or a distributed computer network such as a computer cloud. In some embodiments, one or more computing devices 106 may be portable computing devices such as laptops, tablets, smartphones, and/or the like, integrated with the movable object 108 and movable therewith.”)
Regarding claim 9,
He discloses:
wherein incorporating the magnetic measurements into the magnetic map comprises generating one or more portions of the magnetic map with the magnetic measurements.
(See Fig. 17 and Para. 0144, which shows the magnetic measurements incorporated on a map (i.e. generated on a map), which includes the position of the magnetic measurements.)
Regarding claim 10,
He discloses:
wherein incorporating the magnetic measurements into the magnetic map comprises updating one or more portions of the magnetic map with the magnetic measurements.
(See Para. 0145, “the processing structure 122 repeatedly or periodically executes a process of encoding the spatial structure to LBS features with the consideration of the spatial structure and the observation distributions, and combining and updating LBS features in the LBS feature map. Therefore, the corresponding skeleton and the LBS feature map may evolve over time thereby adapting to the navigation environment and the changes there.” The skeleton on the map that is formed by nodes and links, which is generated with the magnetometer observations, is updated and evolves over time by adapting the navigation environment with respect to the observation distributions of the magnetometer data.)
Regarding claim 11,
He discloses:
further comprising communicating the magnetic map with the magnetic measurements as incorporated to a mapping server. (See Fig. 17 and Para. 0144-0145, wherein the magnetic measurements and corresponding positions are incorporated into a magnetic map which is communicated via the processing structure 22 of system 100. Further see Para. 0087.)
Regarding claim 12,
He discloses:
wherein the device comprises the mapping server.
(See at least Para. 0087.)
Regarding claim 13,
He discloses:
wherein the magnetic map comprises one or more representations of one or more paths traversed by the device.
(See at least Fig. 6, Fig. 12, and Fig. 17.)
Regarding claim 14,
He discloses:
wherein the device further comprises one or more of: a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) receiver; an inertial navigation system (INS); or a communication module.
(See Para. 0083, wherein the system comprises a GNSS receiver, and Para. 0156, wherein the system includes an INS.)
Regarding claim 15,
He discloses:
wherein navigating or localizing comprises re-traversing with the device at least a portion of the path using the magnetic measurements.
(See at least Para. 0125.)
Regarding claims 17-29,
All limitations have been examined with respect to the method in claims 1-15. The apparatus taught/disclosed in claims 17-29 can clearly perform the method of claims 1-15. Therefore claims 17-29 are rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 31,
He discloses:
wherein the processor is integrated with the magnetometer.
(See at least Para. 0044, Para. 0087 and Para. 0089.)
Regarding claim 32,
He discloses:
wherein the processor is further operable to communicate the magnetic map with the magnetic measurements as incorporated to a mapping server
(See Fig. 17 and Para. 0144-0145, wherein the magnetic measurements and corresponding positions are incorporated into a magnetic map which is communicated via the processing structure 22 of system 100. Further see Para. 0087.)
Regarding claim 33,
He discloses:
further comprising the mapping server. (See at least Para. 0087.)
Regarding claim 34,
He discloses:
wherein the processor is integrated with the magnetometer.
(See at least Para. 0044, and Para. 0089.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 16 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HE in view of Wang et al. US20210200226A1 (henceforth Wang)
Regarding claim 16,
He discloses the limitations as recited in claim 1 above. He does not specifically state determining that one or more of the magnetic measurements are outside a predetermined range; and communicating a signal indicating that one or more of the magnetic measurements are outside the predetermined range to trigger a predetermined action.
However, Wang teaches:
determining that one or more of the magnetic measurements are outside a predetermined range; and communicating a signal indicating that one or more of the magnetic measurements are outside the predetermined range to trigger a predetermined action.
(See Fig. 8 and Para. 0059-0061, wherein it is determined if the magnetic measurements are outside a predetermined range. If the magnetic measurement (i.e. the amplitude of the detected magnetic field) is not smaller than a predefined threshold (i.e. outside a predetermined range), then the intelligent robot enters fully automatic mowing mode (i.e. a predetermined action is executed).)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified HE to incorporate the teachings of Wang to include “determining that one or more of the magnetic measurements are outside a predetermined range; and communicating a signal indicating that one or more of the magnetic measurements are outside the predetermined range to trigger a predetermined action” in order to create a more robust self-propelled device by being able to locate the position of the wire break (see Para. 0012, Wang) from the magnetic measurements being outside a range. Furthermore, this would create a more robust automatic lawn mower by allowing the device to take action when an anomaly with the magnetometer sensor takes place. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of He and Wang. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 30,
He and Wang discloses the same limitations as recite in claim 16 above, and is therefore rejected under the same rejection and obviousness rational.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Le Grand US20160025498A1 discloses methods for performing a multi-step approach for map generation and device localizing using data collected by the device and observations of interdependencies between the data. An example method includes receiving logs of data collected by the device, determining a constraint for locations of the device according to a comparison of data in the logs of data with available known signal strength maps of corresponding data, and performing a first simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM) optimization of location estimates of the device using the logs of data and the constraint as a first initialization. (See Abstract)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL J LAMBERT whose telephone number is (571)272-4334. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 am- 6:00 pm MDT.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at (571) 270-7429. 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.
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/G.J.L./
Examiner
Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights