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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The following is a final office action in response to the communication filed on 01/29/2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
Claims 1-2, 9, 14-15, and 19 have been amended.
Claim 20 is new.
Claims 1-2, 7-15, and 20 are rejected.
Claims 3-6 and 16-19 are objected to.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the claim objections directed to minor informalities: The amendments have rendered the previously applied objections moot. Accordingly, the objections have been withdrawn.
Regarding the claim rejections under 35 USC § 112: The amendments to claims 2 and 19, and the persuasive argument with regards to claim 3, have rendered to the rejections moot. Accordingly, the rejections have been withdrawn.
Regarding the claim rejections under 35 USC § 103: Applicant’s arguments/remarks made in
amendment (See Pages 6-7, filed 01/29/2026) have been fully considered and are respectfully addressed as follows.
First, with regards to the argument in reference to Jain (US 2024/004001 A1) that, (Applicant Arguments/Remarks, Page 7, Lines 15-19) “the above mentioned process does not amount to determining, by a controller of the movable pool related platform, a mapping between magnetometer readings and a magnetometer-based direction of movement estimate; wherein the mapping is based, at least in part, on a first range of the first axis magnetometer readings and a second range of the second axis magnetometer readings,” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Examiner is interpreting the capability to define ,“a mapping between magnetometer readings and a magnetometer-based direction of movement estimate,” under broadest reasonable interpretation, as creating a mathematical relationship that inputs magnetic field data from a magnetometer and outputs an applicable heading/motion direction.
Under this interpretation, Jain teaches, (Paragraph [0023], Lines 1-3) “a multiaxis magnetometer. The multiaxis magnetometer 102 senses the magnitude of the magnetic field in each of the multiple axes,” and correspondingly, (Paragraph [0022], Lines 5-7) “The electronic device 100 can utilize the magnetic sensor signals to assist in determining the heading of the electronic device 100.”
Additionally, the mapping must be based upon, “at least in part, on a first range of the first axis magnetometer readings and a second range of the second axis magnetometer readings.”
Most notably, the claim language states the ranges must contribute to the mapping at least in part. This particular language creates a larger breadth towards the scope of the claim language with regards how the ranges effect the outcome of the mapping.
As Jain describes, (Paragraph [0063], Lines 4-12) “The data buffer 138 stores unique magnetic sensor signal values extracted by the magnetometer data extractor 120 of FIG. 2. Each validity check process 140a-140d receives hard iron offset values and a computed total magnetic field strength from a corresponding Kalman filter and least squares instance 122 (not shown). Each validity check process 140a-d checks if the validity flag is true and if the total magnetic field is within a valid range (e.g. 25-60 μT).” Therefore, the valid ranges contribute at least in part to the outcome of the mapping.
Second, with regards to the argument that, (Applicant Arguments/Remarks, Page 7, Lines 20-22) “a man of ordinary skill in the art, when reading the complex multiple independent calibration techniques (not of which does not generate such a mapping) – will not be motivated to add Jain to Goldenberg and Garti,” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The question as to whether Jain would be obvious to add to Goldenberg and Garti with relation to the context of the rejection, is not related to the complexity of the separate Least Squares and Kalman filter calibration methods, but rather, whether or not it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to account for magnetometer saturation when determining a valid magnetic field range. The Examiner’s conclusion is that it would have been obvious, as magnetic saturation is a well-known phenomenon in the art which effectively creates a maximum range for a multi-axis magnetometer, commonly a compass in water vehicle applications, an example of which can be seen in the Relevant, But Not Cited Prior Art section’s citation of Withanawasam et al. (US 7,154,267 B2) which reads, (Page 11, Column 1, Lines 12-14) “Electronic compasses provide compassing capabilities in a variety of applications such as automobiles, airplanes, boats, and personal handheld devices,” and that, (Page 15, Column 9, Lines 55-58) “A saturation condition may occur when a system component within the magnetic compass has reached its maximum handling capacity.” Therefore, there is substantial motivation is the art to apply magnetometer calibration to account for effects such as saturation upon a magnetometers’ effective range.
Third, with regards to the argument that, “the method of Jian is based on the assumption that the magnetometer readings are skewed due to magnetic interference – and under such conditions using a mapping seems to be contrary to such solution,” Examiner disagrees inasmuch that the disclosure Jian serves as an example of mapping magnetometer readings. As mentioned with regards to the first argument, the broadest reasonable interpretation of defining a mapping between magnetometer readings and a magnetometer-based direction of movement estimate includes that of creating a mathematical relationship that inputs magnetic field data from a magnetometer and outputs an applicable heading/motion direction.
Claim Interpretation
Applicant serves as their own lexicographer for the term, “Pool Related Platform”, abbreviated in the specification as PRP, which is described in the specification as, (Paragraph [0023]) “A movable PRP is any platform that is capable of moving within a pool and is capable of performing an operation related to a liquid of a pool - cleaning, changing chemical composition, monitoring, and the like. Examples of a PRP include a PCR, a pool robot that differs from a PCR, a movable floating unit, a movable skimmer, and the like. Any example related a PCR may be applied mutatis mutandis, to any other movable PRP.”
Applicant serves as their own lexicographer for the term, “home direction,” which is described in the specification as, (Paragraph [0024], Lines 1-2) “a direction that once followed by the PCR leads the PCR to a potential exit for exiting the pool.”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6 and 16-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 7-12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldenberg et al., (EP 3293324 A1, hereinafter Goldenberg) in view of Jain et al., (US 2024/0045001 A1, hereinafter Jain) further in view of Garti. (US 2009/0057238 A1, hereinafter referred to as Garti)
Claim 1 Discloses: (Currently Amended)
“A method for navigating a movable pool related platform, the method comprising:”
Goldenberg teaches, (Paragraph [0012]) “Any reference to a pool cleaner should be applied, mutatis mutandis to a method that is executed by a pool cleaner and/or to a non-transitory computer readable medium that stores instructions that once executed by the pool cleaner will cause the pool cleaner to execute the method.
“moving the movable pool related platform along a home direction,”
Goldenberg teaches, (Paragraph [0121], Lines 1-5) “At least one pool cleaning robot of the set may include at least one out of (i) a propulsion unit such as a drive system that is configured to move the pool cleaning robot, during a pool exit process, at a path that leads outside the pool.”
“wherein the movable pool related platform is associated with a gyroscope and with a magnetometer,”
Goldenberg teaches, (Paragraph [0242], Lines 1-2) “The pool cleaning robot 850 may include at least one of the following elements on-board (see figure 22):”
Goldenberg additionally teaches, (Paragraph [0242], Lines 14-17) “One or more motion sensors 874 such as an accelerometer and/or a gyroscope and/or an inertial measurement unit {IMU) and/or a laser wall recognition device.”
Goldenberg additionally teaches, (Paragraph [0242], Lines 19-21) “A heading direction measurement sensor 876 such as magnetometer, compass, and/or a gyrocompass.”
“wherein the moving is based on a gyroscope-based direction of movement estimate,”
Goldenberg teaches, (Paragraph [0242], Lines 14-17) “One or more motion sensors 874 such as an accelerometer and/or a gyroscope and/or an inertial measurement unit {IMU) and/or a laser wall recognition device,” and that, (Paragraph [0055]) “The sensing may involve monitoring the movement of the pool cleaning robots ... This may involve speed sensing and/or acceleration sensing and/or direction sensing, and the like.”
“wherein the gyroscope was aligned with the magnetometer, wherein the magnetometer was calibrated during a calibration process that comprised: determining, by a controller of the movable pool related platform, a mapping between magnetometer readings and a magnetometer-based direction of movement estimate; wherein the mapping is based, at least in part, on a first range of aa
Goldenberg does not teach the calibration process described in the preceding limitations, but does teach a pool cleaning robot comprising both a magnetometer and gyroscope which assist in navigation.
Jain does teach the above magnetometer calibration process in the context of an electronic device such as a smart watch, which a person of ordinary skill could easily conceive being applied to a vehicle navigation system such as the one present in the pool cleaning robot of Goldenberg, as magnetic saturation is a well-known phenomenon in the art which effectively creates a maximum range for a multi-axis magnetometer, commonly a compass in water vehicle applications, an example of which can be seen in the Relevant, But Not Cited Prior Art section’s citation of Withanawasam et al. (US 7,154,267 B2) which reads, (Page 11, Column 1, Lines 12-14) “Electronic compasses provide compassing capabilities in a variety of applications such as automobiles, airplanes, boats, and personal handheld devices,” and that, (Page 15, Column 9, Lines 55-58) “A saturation condition may occur when a system component within the magnetic compass has reached its maximum handling capacity.” Therefore, there is substantial motivation is the art to apply magnetometer calibration to account for effects such as saturation upon a magnetometers’ effective range.
Jain teaches, (Paragraph [0023], Lines 1-3) “a multiaxis magnetometer. The multiaxis magnetometer 102 senses the magnitude of the magnetic field in each of the multiple axes,” and that, (Paragraph [0048], Lines 9-15) “The magnetometer data extractor 120 analyzes each set of sensor signal values (each set including a value for each measurement axis of the magnetometer 102 at a given point in time). The magnetometer data extractor 120 identifies individual values or entire sets of values that are outside the range of recently received sensor signal values. The magnetometer data extractor 120 stores these values in a buffer. The unique values are then provided from the buffer to the validation unit.”
As Jain describes, (Paragraph [0063], Lines 4-12) “The data buffer 138 stores unique magnetic sensor signal values extracted by the magnetometer data extractor 120 of FIG. 2. Each validity check process 140a-140d receives hard iron offset values and a computed total magnetic field strength from a corresponding Kalman filter and least squares instance 122 (not shown). Each validity check process 140a-d checks if the validity flag is true and if the total magnetic field is within a valid range (e.g. 25-60 μT).”
“and performing an alignment iteration that comprises aligning, by the controller, between the magnetometer-based direction of movement estimate and the gyroscope-based direction of movement estimate.”
Jain does not explicitly teach an alignment iteration that aligns a direction based movement between the magnetometer-based direction of movement estimate and gyroscope-based direction of movement estimate in the context of a pool related platform, but does teach continuously aligning the heading of a smart watch based on gyroscope and magnetometer data.
Jain teaches, (Paragraph [0038], Lines 7-9) “The sensor processor 108 processes the magnetometer sensor signals in order to determine the heading or orientation of the electronic device 100,” and that, (Paragraph [0066], Lines 17-20) “After calibration has been performed, the sensor processor 108 can calculate the heading orientation of the smartwatch 600 based on the magnetometer and gyroscope sensor signals.”
Jain additionally teaches, (Claim 1, Lines 13-23) “validating the first and second magnetometer calibration parameters by analyzing a convergence between the first magnetometer calibration parameter and the second magnetometer calibration parameter; and simultaneously operating multiple instances of the first analysis process and the second analysis process, wherein the multiple instances of the first analysis process are offset from each other in time, wherein simultaneously operating multiple instances of the first analysis process includes continuously calibrating the magnetometer.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to additionally combine the pool cleaning robot system of Goldenberg with the magnetometer-gyroscope heading calibration process as taught by Jain, in order to yield predictable results.
Combining the references would yield the well-known data accuracy benefits of implementing both magnetometer axes available range determinations and magnetometer-gyroscope heading alignments, both of which can counteract the sensor bias effects of a magnetometer such as by hard iron. As Jain describes, (Paragraph [0003], Lines 4-10) “Electronic devices typically utilize magnetometers to assist in determining the orientation or heading of the electronic device. Magnetometers determine the orientation of the electronic device relative to the Earth's magnetic field. However, if there are other sources of magnetic field near the electronic device, then the magnetometer may provide a faulty orientation or heading,” and that, (Paragraph [0026], Lines 7-14) “calibration parameters can include a hard iron offset parameter. The hard iron offset indicates the magnitude and direction of constant magnetic fields other than the Earth's magnetic field. The magnetometer calibration module 106 utilizes the hard iron offset parameter, or other calibration parameters, to filter out other magnetic fields or to otherwise isolate the Earth's magnetic field in the magnetic sensor signals from the magnetometer 102.”
Garti does explicitly teach executing the alignment iteration in the context of a pool related platform.
Garti teaches, (Paragraph [0005]) “According to one aspect of the present invention, there is provided a pool cleaning robot adapted to move in a direction along the bottom surface of a pool, the robot comprising a compass (which may be a digital compass), a rate gyroscope (which may be a Micro-Electro-Mechanical System rate gyroscope), and a controller adapted to determine the orientation of the robot, relative to a reference orientation thereof, based on readings of the compass and the gyroscope.” Under broadest reasonable interpretation, a compass is a magnetometer.
Garti additionally teaches, “The robot may further comprise an alignment-detection mechanism. The alignment-detection mechanism may comprise a compass (which may be a digital compass) and a rate gyroscope (which may be a Micro-Electro-Mechanical System rate gyroscope).”
Garti additionally teaches, (Paragraph [0023, Lines 7-10 & Paragraph [0024], Lines 1-2) “the setup system being adapted to communicate with the controller to direct the robot to perform the following operations to determine at least some of the parameters: [0024] (a) aligning the robot such that its direction of travel is perpendicular to a sidewall of the pool.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to additionally combine the pool cleaning robot system of Goldenberg with the magnetometer-gyroscope heading calibration process as taught by Jain, and the pool related platform alignment of Garti, in order to yield predictable results.
The rationale for additionally combining with Garti would be align the robot’s magnetometer and gyroscope to ensure straight path scanning to more accurately travel along for example the sidewalls of a pool. As Garti describes, (Paragraph [0078]) “The robot controller 74 may be preprogrammed to perform scanning according to one of several algorithms, for example which take advantage of the fact that the alignment-detection mechanism 80 is adapted to ensure that the robot 12 scans along a straight path.”
Claim 2 Discloses: (Currently Amended)
“The method according to claim 1, comprising executing the calibration process”
Goldenberg does not teach the calibration execution described in claim 2.
Jain does teach the above magnetometer calibration execution in the context of an electronic device such as a smart watch, which a person of ordinary skill could easily conceive being applied to a vehicle navigation system such as the one present in the pool cleaning robot of Goldenberg, as magnetic saturation is a well-known phenomenon in the art which effectively creates a maximum range for a multi-axis magnetometer, commonly a compass in water vehicle applications, an example of which can be seen in the Relevant, But Not Cited Prior Art section’s citation of Withanawasam et al. (US 7,154,267 B2) which reads, (Page 11, Column 1, Lines 12-14) “Electronic compasses provide compassing capabilities in a variety of applications such as automobiles, airplanes, boats, and personal handheld devices,” and that, (Page 15, Column 9, Lines 55-58) “A saturation condition may occur when a system component within the magnetic compass has reached its maximum handling capacity.” Therefore, there is substantial motivation is the art to apply magnetometer calibration to account for effects such as saturation upon a magnetometers’ effective range.
Jain teaches, (Paragraph [0023], Lines 1-3) “a multiaxis magnetometer. The multiaxis magnetometer 102 senses the magnitude of the magnetic field in each of the multiple axes,” and that, (Paragraph [0048], Lines 9-15) “The magnetometer data extractor 120 analyzes each set of sensor signal values (each set including a value for each measurement axis of the magnetometer 102 at a given point in time). The magnetometer data extractor 120 identifies individual values or entire sets of values that are outside the range of recently received sensor signal values. The magnetometer data extractor 120 stores these values in a buffer. The unique values are then provided from the buffer to the validation unit.”
As Jain describes, (Paragraph [0063], Lines 4-12) “The data buffer 138 stores unique magnetic sensor signal values extracted by the magnetometer data extractor 120 of FIG. 2. Each validity check process 140a-140d receives hard iron offset values and a computed total magnetic field strength from a corresponding Kalman filter and least squares instance 122 (not shown). Each validity check process 140a-d checks if the validity flag is true and if the total magnetic field is within a valid range (e.g. 25-60 μT).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to additionally combine the pool cleaning robot system of Goldenberg with the magnetometer-gyroscope heading calibration process as taught by Jain, in order to yield predictable results.
Combining the references would yield the well-known data accuracy benefits of implementing both magnetometer axes available range determinations and magnetometer-gyroscope heading alignments, both of which can counteract the sensor bias effects of a magnetometer such as by hard iron. As Jain describes, (Paragraph [0003], Lines 4-10) “Electronic devices typically utilize magnetometers to assist in determining the orientation or heading of the electronic device. Magnetometers determine the orientation of the electronic device relative to the Earth's magnetic field. However, if there are other sources of magnetic field near the electronic device, then the magnetometer may provide a faulty orientation or heading,” and that, (Paragraph [0026], Lines 7-14) “calibration parameters can include a hard iron offset parameter. The hard iron offset indicates the magnitude and direction of constant magnetic fields other than the Earth's magnetic field. The magnetometer calibration module 106 utilizes the hard iron offset parameter, or other calibration parameters, to filter out other magnetic fields or to otherwise isolate the Earth's magnetic field in the magnetic sensor signals from the magnetometer 102.”
“while the movable pool related platform moves to multiple directions.”
Garti does explicitly teach executing the alignment iteration in the context of a pool related platform as it moves to multiple directions.
Garti teaches, (Paragraph [0005]) “According to one aspect of the present invention, there is provided a pool cleaning robot adapted to move in a direction along the bottom surface of a pool, the robot comprising a compass (which may be a digital compass), a rate gyroscope (which may be a Micro-Electro-Mechanical System rate gyroscope), and a controller adapted to determine the orientation of the robot, relative to a reference orientation thereof, based on readings of the compass and the gyroscope.” Under broadest reasonable interpretation, a compass is a magnetometer.
Garti additionally teaches, “The robot may further comprise an alignment-detection mechanism. The alignment-detection mechanism may comprise a compass (which may be a digital compass) and a rate gyroscope (which may be a Micro-Electro-Mechanical System rate gyroscope).”
Garti additionally teaches, (Paragraph [0023, Lines 7-10 & Paragraph [0024], Lines 1-2) “the setup system being adapted to communicate with the controller to direct the robot to perform the following operations to determine at least some of the parameters: [0024] (a) aligning the robot such that its direction of travel is perpendicular to a sidewall of the pool.”
Garti additionally teaches, (Paragraph [0076]) “As the robot 12 is designed to be able to maintain a straight path … Based on these directions, the control system may direct the robot 12 during normal operation to alter its course so that its trajectory remains along the length or width direction, as appropriate.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to additionally combine the pool cleaning robot system of Goldenberg with the magnetometer-gyroscope heading calibration process as taught by Jain, and the pool related platform alignment of Garti, in order to yield predictable results.
The rationale for additionally combining with Garti would be align the robot’s magnetometer and gyroscope to ensure straight path scanning to more accurately travel along for example the sidewalls of a pool. As Garti describes, (Paragraph [0078]) “The robot controller 74 may be preprogrammed to perform scanning according to one of several algorithms, for example which take advantage of the fact that the alignment-detection mechanism 80 is adapted to ensure that the robot 12 scans along a straight path.”
Claim 7 Discloses: (Previously Presented)
“The method according to claim 1, wherein the movable pool related platform is a pool cleaning robot, and wherein the magnetometer is located at the pool cleaning robot.”
Goldenberg teaches, (Paragraph [0242], Lines 1-2) “The pool cleaning robot 850 may include at least one of the following elements on-board (see figure 22):”
Goldenberg additionally teaches, (Paragraph [0242], Lines 19-21) “A heading direction measurement sensor 876 such as magnetometer, compass, and/or a gyrocompass.”
Claim 8 Discloses: (Previously Presented)
“The method according to claim 7, wherein the movable pool related platform is a pool cleaning robot, and wherein the gyroscope is located at the pool cleaning robot.”
Goldenberg teaches, (Paragraph [0242], Lines 1-2) “The pool cleaning robot 850 may include at least one of the following elements on-board (see figure 22):”
Goldenberg additionally teaches, (Paragraph [0242], Lines 14-17) “One or more motion sensors 874 such as an accelerometer and/or a gyroscope and/or an inertial measurement unit {IMU) and/or a laser wall recognition device.”
Claim 9 Discloses: (Currently Amended)
“The method according to claim 7, wherein the home direction is initially determined in an arbitrary manner.”
Goldenberg teaches, (Paragraph [0121], Lines 1-5) “At least one pool cleaning robot of the set may include at least one out of (i) a propulsion unit such as a drive system that is configured to move the pool cleaning robot, during a pool exit process, at a path that leads outside the pool,” and that, (Paragraph [0262]) “The initializing step may include at least one out of … Allocating cleaning tasks to the pool cleaning robots of the set … Performing orientation within the pool of one or more pool cleaning robot,” as well as that, (Paragraph [0140], Lines 18-19) “the pool cleaning robots may follow … random cleaning paths.”
Claim 10 Discloses: (Original)
“The method according to claim 7, wherein the calibration process comprises searching, based on gyroscope readings, a positive slope that is directed towards the home direction.”
Goldenberg teaches, (Paragraph [0121], Lines 1-5) “At least one pool cleaning robot of the set may include at least one out of (i) a propulsion unit such as a drive system that is configured to move the pool cleaning robot, during a pool exit process, at a path that leads outside the pool.”
Goldenberg additionally teaches, (Paragraph [0242], Lines 1-2) “The pool cleaning robot 850 may include at least one of the following elements on-board (see figure 22):”
Goldenberg additionally teaches, (Paragraph [0242], Lines 14-17) “One or more motion sensors 874 such as an accelerometer and/or a gyroscope and/or an inertial measurement unit {IMU) and/or a laser wall recognition device.”
Goldenberg additionally teaches, (Paragraph [0173], Lines 31-36) “Within the framework of a set of pool cleaning robots, the second pool cleaning robot 22 or 21 may possess special brushes and/or propulsion jets that allow it to descend on a slippery slope 102 to clean area 103 and exit back to area 102 or 101.” Therefore, the robots are capable of traveling up a positive slope towards a home direction.
PNG
media_image1.png
540
728
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 11 Discloses: (Original)
“The method according to claim 10, wherein the searching comprises finding positive slopes and differentiating between the positive slopes based on magnetometer readings when the movable PRP moves along the positive slopes.”
Goldenberg teaches, (Paragraph [0242], Lines 1-2) “The pool cleaning robot 850 may include at least one of the following elements on-board (see figure 22):”
Goldenberg additionally teaches, (Paragraph [0242], Lines 19-21) “A heading direction measurement sensor 876 such as magnetometer, compass, and/or a gyrocompass.”
Goldenberg additionally teaches, (Paragraph [0174]) “Figure 2B illustrates (i) first, second and third pool cleaning robots 21, 22 and 23, (ii) first, second and third power supply units 26, 27 and 28, (iii) first, second and third cords 39, 38 and 37, (iv) a central power supply unit 28, and (v) a pool 100 that has a flat bottom portion 101 followed by a sloped bottom portion 102, a hopper 103 and sidewalls 104, 105 and 106 (as well as a few unnumbered sidewalls).”
PNG
media_image2.png
557
747
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Goldenberg additionally teaches, (Paragraphs [0176-0179]) “First pool cleaning robot 21 is configured to clean flat bottom portion 101. The first pool cleaning robot 21 follows a zig-zag cleaning path 111 for cleaning the flat bottom portion 101. Second pool cleaning robot 22 is configured to clean sloped bottom portion 102. The second pool cleaning robot 22 follows a zig-zag cleaning path 112 for cleaning the sloped bottom portion 102. Third pool cleaning robot 23 is configured to clean hopper 103.The third pool cleaning robot 23 follows a zig-zag cleaning path 113 for cleaning hopper 103. Fourth pool cleaning robot 24 is configured to clean sidewalls 104, 105 and 106 as well as a narrow flat strip between sidewalls 104 and 105. The fourth pool cleaning robot 24 follows a zig-zag cleaning path 114 for cleaning the sidewalls 104, 105 and 106.”
Therefore, the robots are able to determine different sloped regions of a pool based at least in part from their magnetometer and clean said regions accordingly.
Claim 12 Discloses: (Original)
“The method according to claim 7, comprising performing the alignment iteration when reaching a sidewall of the pool.”
Goldenberg and Jain do not teach the limitations of claim 12.
Garti does teach the limitations of claim 12.
Garti teaches, (Paragraph [0005]) “According to one aspect of the present invention, there is provided a pool cleaning robot adapted to move in a direction along the bottom surface of a pool, the robot comprising a compass (which may be a digital compass), a rate gyroscope (which may be a Micro-Electro-Mechanical System rate gyroscope), and a controller adapted to determine the orientation of the robot, relative to a reference orientation thereof, based on readings of the compass and the gyroscope.” Under broadest reasonable interpretation, a compass is a magnetometer.
Gath additionally teaches, (Paragraph [0048]) “A front detection is a detection of a sidewall of the pool which intersects the trajectory of the robot, i.e., a sidewall in front of the robot which the robot impacts during scanning.”
Garti additionally teaches, “The robot may further comprise an alignment-detection mechanism. The alignment-detection mechanism may comprise a compass (which may be a digital compass) and a rate gyroscope (which may be a Micro-Electro-Mechanical System rate gyroscope).”
Garti additionally teaches, (Paragraph [0023, Lines 7-10 & Paragraph [0024], Lines 1-2) “the setup system being adapted to communicate with the controller to direct the robot to perform the following operations to determine at least some of the parameters: [0024] (a) aligning the robot such that its direction of travel is perpendicular to a sidewall of the pool;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the method of using a pool-related-platform of Goldenberg with the magnetometer/gyroscope calibration method of Jain, and the initiation of alignment upon reaching the pool sidewall taught by Garti, in order to yield predictable results.
The rationale for additionally combining with Garti would be align the robot’s magnetometer and gyroscope to ensure straight path scanning to more accurately travel along the sidewalls of a pool. As Garti describes, (Paragraph [0078]) “The robot controller 74 may be preprogrammed to perform scanning according to one of several algorithms, for example which take advantage of the fact that the alignment-detection mechanism 80 is adapted to ensure that the robot 12 scans along a straight path.”
Claim 14 Discloses: (Currently Amended)
“A non-transitory computer readable medium for navigating a movable pool related platform, the non-transitory computer readable medium stores instructions that once executed by the movable pool related platform cause the movable pool related platform to:”
Goldenberg teaches, (Paragraphs [0012-0014]) “Any reference to a pool cleaner should be applied, mutatis mutandis to a method that is executed by a pool cleaner and/or to a non-transitory computer readable medium that stores instructions that once executed by the pool cleaner will cause the pool cleaner to execute the method. Any reference to method should be applied, mutatis mutandis to a pool cleaner that is configured to execute the method and/or to a non-transitory computer readable medium that stores instructions that once executed by the pool cleaner will cause the pool cleaner to execute the method. Any reference to a non-transitory computer readable medium should be applied, mutatis mutandis to a method that is executed by a pool cleaner and/or a pool cleaner that is configured to execute the instructions stored in the non-transitory computer readable medium.”
“move the movable pool related platform along a home direction,”
Goldenberg teaches, (Paragraph [0121], Lines 1-5) “At least one pool cleaning robot of the set may include at least one out of (i) a propulsion unit such as a drive system that is configured to move the pool cleaning robot, during a pool exit process, at a path that leads outside the pool.”
“wherein the movable pool related platform is associated with a gyroscope and with a magnetometer,”
Goldenberg teaches, (Paragraph [0242], Lines 1-2) “The pool cleaning robot 850 may include at least one of the following elements on-board (see figure 22):”
Goldenberg additionally teaches, (Paragraph [0242], Lines 14-17) “One or more motion sensors 874 such as an accelerometer and/or a gyroscope and/or an inertial measurement unit {IMU) and/or a laser wall recognition device.”
Goldenberg additionally teaches, (Paragraph [0242], Lines 19-21) “A heading direction measurement sensor 876 such as magnetometer, compass, and/or a gyrocompass.”
“wherein the moving is based on a gyroscope-based direction of movement estimate,”
Goldenberg teaches, (Paragraph [0242], Lines 14-17) “One or more motion sensors 874 such as an accelerometer and/or a gyroscope and/or an inertial measurement unit {IMU) and/or a laser wall recognition device,” and that, (Paragraph [0055]) “The sensing may involve monitoring the movement of the pool cleaning robots ... This may involve speed sensing and/or acceleration sensing and/or direction sensing, and the like.”
“wherein the gyroscope was aligned with the magnetometer, wherein the magnetometer was calibrated during a calibration process that comprised: determining, by a controller of the movable pool related platform, a mapping between magnetometer readings and a magnetometer-based direction of movement estimate; wherein the mapping is based, at least in part, on a first range of aa
Goldenberg does not teach the calibration process described in the preceding limitations, but does teach a pool cleaning robot comprising both a magnetometer and gyroscope which assist in navigation.
Jain does teach the above magnetometer calibration process in the context of an electronic device such as a smart watch, which a person of ordinary skill could easily conceive being applied to a vehicle navigation system such as the one present in the pool cleaning robot of Goldenberg, as magnetic saturation is a well-known phenomenon in the art which effectively creates a maximum range for a multi-axis magnetometer, commonly a compass in water vehicle applications, an example of which can be seen in the Relevant, But Not Cited Prior Art section’s citation of Withanawasam et al. (US 7,154,267 B2) which reads, (Page 11, Column 1, Lines 12-14) “Electronic compasses provide compassing capabilities in a variety of applications such as automobiles, airplanes, boats, and personal handheld devices,” and that, (Page 15, Column 9, Lines 55-58) “A saturation condition may occur when a system component within the magnetic compass has reached its maximum handling capacity.” Therefore, there is substantial motivation is the art to apply magnetometer calibration to account for effects such as saturation upon a magnetometers’ effective range.
Jain teaches, (Paragraph [0023], Lines 1-3) “a multiaxis magnetometer. The multiaxis magnetometer 102 senses the magnitude of the magnetic field in each of the multiple axes,” and that, (Paragraph [0048], Lines 9-15) “The magnetometer data extractor 120 analyzes each set of sensor signal values (each set including a value for each measurement axis of the magnetometer 102 at a given point in time). The magnetometer data extractor 120 identifies individual values or entire sets of values that are outside the range of recently received sensor signal values. The magnetometer data extractor 120 stores these values in a buffer. The unique values are then provided from the buffer to the validation unit.”
As Jain describes, (Paragraph [0063], Lines 4-12) “The data buffer 138 stores unique magnetic sensor signal values extracted by the magnetometer data extractor 120 of FIG. 2. Each validity check process 140a-140d receives hard iron offset values and a computed total magnetic field strength from a corresponding Kalman filter and least squares instance 122 (not shown). Each validity check process 140a-d checks if the validity flag is true and if the total magnetic field is within a valid range (e.g. 25-60 μT).”
“and performing an alignment iteration that comprises aligning, by the controller, between the magnetometer-based direction of movement estimate and the gyroscope-based direction of movement estimate.”
Jain does not explicitly teach an alignment iteration that aligns a direction based movement between the magnetometer-based direction of movement estimate and gyroscope-based direction of movement estimate in the context of a pool related platform, but does teach continuously aligning the heading of a smart watch based on gyroscope and magnetometer data.
Jain teaches, (Paragraph [0038], Lines 7-9) “The sensor processor 108 processes the magnetometer sensor signals in order to determine the heading or orientation of the electronic device 100,” and that, (Paragraph [0066], Lines 17-20) “After calibration has been performed, the sensor processor 108 can calculate the heading orientation of the smartwatch 600 based on the magnetometer and gyroscope sensor signals.”
Jain additionally teaches, (Claim 1, Lines 13-23) “validating the first and second magnetometer calibration parameters by analyzing a convergence between the first magnetometer calibration parameter and the second magnetometer calibration parameter; and simultaneously operating multiple instances of the first analysis process and the second analysis process, wherein the multiple instances of the first analysis process are offset from each other in time, wherein simultaneously operating multiple instances of the first analysis process includes continuously calibrating the magnetometer.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the pool cleaning robot system of Goldenberg with the magnetometer-gyroscope heading calibration process as taught by Jain, in order to yield predictable results.
Combining the references would yield the well-known data accuracy benefits of implementing both magnetometer axes available range determinations and magnetometer-gyroscope heading alignments, both of which can counteract the sensor bias effects of a magnetometer such as by hard iron . As Jain describes, (Paragraph [0003], Lines 4-10) “Electronic devices typically utilize magnetometers to assist in determining the orientation or heading of the electronic device. Magnetometers determine the orientation of the electronic device relative to the Earth's magnetic field. However, if there are other sources of magnetic field near the electronic device, then the magnetometer may provide a faulty orientation or heading,” and that, (Paragraph [0026], Lines 7-14) “calibration parameters can include a hard iron offset parameter. The hard iron offset indicates the magnitude and direction of constant magnetic fields other than the Earth's magnetic field. The magnetometer calibration module 106 utilizes the hard iron offset parameter, or other calibration parameters, to filter out other magnetic fields or to otherwise isolate the Earth's magnetic field in the magnetic sensor signals from the magnetometer 102.”
Garti does explicitly teach executing the alignment iteration in the context of a pool related platform.
Garti teaches, (Paragraph [0005]) “According to one aspect of the present invention, there is provided a pool cleaning robot adapted to move in a direction along the bottom surface of a pool, the robot comprising a compass (which may be a digital compass), a rate gyroscope (which may be a Micro-Electro-Mechanical System rate gyroscope), and a controller adapted to determine the orientation of the robot, relative to a reference orientation thereof, based on readings of the compass and the gyroscope.” Under broadest reasonable interpretation, a compass is a magnetometer.
Garti additionally teaches, “The robot may further comprise an alignment-detection mechanism. The alignment-detection mechanism may comprise a compass (which may be a digital compass) and a rate gyroscope (which may be a Micro-Electro-Mechanical System rate gyroscope).”
Garti additionally teaches, (Paragraph [0023, Lines 7-10 & Paragraph [0024], Lines 1-2) “the setup system being adapted to communicate with the controller to direct the robot to perform the following operations to determine at least some of the parameters: [0024] (a) aligning the robot such that its direction of travel is perpendicular to a sidewall of the pool.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to additionally combine the pool cleaning robot system of Goldenberg with the magnetometer-gyroscope heading calibration process as taught by Jain, and the pool related platform alignment of Garti, in order to yield predictable results.
The rationale for additionally combining with Garti would be align the robot’s magnetometer and gyroscope to ensure straight path scanning to more accurately travel along for example the sidewalls of a pool. As Garti describes, (Paragraph [0078]) “The robot controller 74 may be preprogrammed to perform scanning according to one of several algorithms, for example which take advantage of the fact that the alignment-detection mechanism 80 is adapted to ensure that the robot 12 scans along a straight path.”
Claim 15 Discloses: (Currently Amended)
“A movable pool related platform, comprising:”
Goldenberg teaches a, (Title) “SET OF POOL CLEANING ROBOTS FOR CLEANING DIFFERENT REGIONS OF A POOL.”
“a gyroscope;”
Goldenberg teaches, (Paragraph [0242], Lines 14-17) “One or more motion sensors 874 such as an accelerometer and/or a gyroscope and/or an inertial measurement unit {IMU) and/or a laser wall recognition device.”
“a magnetometer;”
Goldenberg additionally teaches, (Paragraph [0242], Lines 19-21) “A heading direction measurement sensor 876 such as magnetometer, compass, and/or a gyrocompass.”
“a controller;”
Goldenberg teaches, (Paragraph [0012]) “Any reference to a pool cleaner should be applied, mutatis mutandis to a method that is executed by a pool cleaner and/or to a non-transitory computer readable medium that stores instructions that once executed by the pool cleaner will cause the pool cleaner to execute the method.”
Goldenberg additionally teaches, (Paragraph [0024, Lines 12-17) “cleaning robots … may include different hardware components and/or different software, code, firmware or malware configurations.” In light of the disclosure of Goldenberg, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art based in the art that a controller would be used to execute instructions carried out by a robot.
“a propulsion unit”
Goldenberg teaches, (Paragraph [0026]) “The set may include a first pool cleaning robot and a second pool cleaning robot that differ from each other. The difference may be, for example, a difference between at least one unit out of a propulsion unit and a cleaning unit.”
“configured to move the movable pool related platform along a home direction,”
Goldenberg teaches, (Paragraph [0121], Lines 1-5) “At least one pool cleaning robot of the set may include at least one out of (i) a propulsion unit such as a drive system that is configured to move the pool cleaning robot, during a pool exit process, at a path that leads outside the pool.”
“wherein the moving is executed under a control of the controller and based on a gyroscope-based direction of movement estimate,”
Goldenberg teaches, (Paragraph [0242], Lines 14-17) “One or more motion sensors 874 such as an accelerometer and/or a gyroscope and/or an inertial measurement unit {IMU) and/or a laser wall recognition device.”
“wherein the gyroscope was aligned with the magnetometer, wherein the magnetometer was calibrated during a calibration process that comprised: determining, by the controller, a mapping between magnetometer readings and a magnetometer-based direction of movement estimate; wherein the mapping is based, at least in part, on a first range of aa
Goldenberg does not teach the calibration process described in the preceding limitations, but does teach a pool cleaning robot comprising both a magnetometer and gyroscope which assist in navigation.
Jain does teach the above magnetometer calibration process in the context of an electronic device such as a smart watch, which a person of ordinary skill could easily conceive being applied to a vehicle navigation system such as the one present in the pool cleaning robot of Goldenberg, as magnetic saturation is a well-known phenomenon in the art which effectively creates a maximum range for a multi-axis magnetometer, commonly a compass in water vehicle applications, an example of which can be seen in the Relevant, But Not Cited Prior Art section’s citation of Withanawasam et al. (US 7,154,267 B2) which reads, (Page 11, Column 1, Lines 12-14) “Electronic compasses provide compassing capabilities in a variety of applications such as automobiles, airplanes, boats, and personal handheld devices,” and that, (Page 15, Column 9, Lines 55-58) “A saturation condition may occur when a system component within the magnetic compass has reached its maximum handling capacity.” Therefore, there is substantial motivation is the art to apply magnetometer calibration to account for effects such as saturation upon a magnetometers’ effective range.
Jain teaches, (Paragraph [0023], Lines 1-3) “a multiaxis magnetometer. The multiaxis magnetometer 102 senses the magnitude of the magnetic field in each of the multiple axes,” and that, (Paragraph [0048], Lines 9-15) “The magnetometer data extractor 120 analyzes each set of sensor signal values (each set including a value for each measurement axis of the magnetometer 102 at a given point in time). The magnetometer data extractor 120 identifies individual values or entire sets of values that are outside the range of recently received sensor signal values. The magnetometer data extractor 120 stores these values in a buffer. The unique values are then provided from the buffer to the validation unit.”
Jain additionally teaches, (Paragraph [0063], Lines 4-12) “The data buffer 138 stores unique magnetic sensor signal values extracted by the magnetometer data extractor 120 of FIG. 2. Each validity check process 140a-140d receives hard iron offset values and a computed total magnetic field strength from a corresponding Kalman filter and least squares instance 122 (not shown). Each validity check process 140a-d checks if the validity flag is true and if the total magnetic field is within a valid range (e.g. 25-60 μT).”
“and performing an alignment iteration that comprises aligning, by the controller, between the magnetometer-based direction of movement estimate and the gyroscope-based direction of movement estimate.”
Jain does not explicitly teach an alignment iteration that aligns a direction based movement between the magnetometer-based direction of movement estimate and gyroscope-based direction of movement estimate in the context of a pool related platform, but does teach continuously aligning the heading of a smart watch based on gyroscope and magnetometer data.
Jain teaches, (Paragraph [0038], Lines 7-9) “The sensor processor 108 processes the magnetometer sensor signals in order to determine the heading or orientation of the electronic device 100,” and that, (Paragraph [0066], Lines 17-20) “After calibration has been performed, the sensor processor 108 can calculate the heading orientation of the smartwatch 600 based on the magnetometer and gyroscope sensor signals.”
Jain additionally teaches, (Claim 1, Lines 13-23) “validating the first and second magnetometer calibration parameters by analyzing a convergence between the first magnetometer calibration parameter and the second magnetometer calibration parameter; and simultaneously operating multiple instances of the first analysis process and the second analysis process, wherein the multiple instances of the first analysis process are offset from each other in time, wherein simultaneously operating multiple instances of the first analysis process includes continuously calibrating the magnetometer.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the pool cleaning robot system of Goldenberg with the magnetometer-gyroscope heading calibration process as taught by Jain, in order to yield predictable results.
Combining the references would yield the well-known data accuracy benefits of implementing both magnetometer axes available range determinations and magnetometer-gyroscope heading alignments, both of which can counteract the sensor bias effects of a magnetometer such as by hard iron . As Jain describes, (Paragraph [0003], Lines 4-10) “Electronic devices typically utilize magnetometers to assist in determining the orientation or heading of the electronic device. Magnetometers determine the orientation of the electronic device relative to the Earth's magnetic field. However, if there are other sources of magnetic field near the electronic device, then the magnetometer may provide a faulty orientation or heading,” and that, (Paragraph [0026], Lines 7-14) “calibration parameters can include a hard iron offset parameter. The hard iron offset indicates the magnitude and direction of constant magnetic fields other than the Earth's magnetic field. The magnetometer calibration module 106 utilizes the hard iron offset parameter, or other calibration parameters, to filter out other magnetic fields or to otherwise isolate the Earth's magnetic field in the magnetic sensor signals from the magnetometer 102.”
Garti does explicitly teach executing the alignment iteration in the context of a pool related platform.
Garti teaches, (Paragraph [0005]) “According to one aspect of the present invention, there is provided a pool cleaning robot adapted to move in a direction along the bottom surface of a pool, the robot comprising a compass (which may be a digital compass), a rate gyroscope (which may be a Micro-Electro-Mechanical System rate gyroscope), and a controller adapted to determine the orientation of the robot, relative to a reference orientation thereof, based on readings of the compass and the gyroscope.” Under broadest reasonable interpretation, a compass is a magnetometer.
Garti additionally teaches, “The robot may further comprise an alignment-detection mechanism. The alignment-detection mechanism may comprise a compass (which may be a digital compass) and a rate gyroscope (which may be a Micro-Electro-Mechanical System rate gyroscope).”
Garti additionally teaches, (Paragraph [0023, Lines 7-10 & Paragraph [0024], Lines 1-2) “the setup system being adapted to communicate with the controller to direct the robot to perform the following operations to determine at least some of the parameters: [0024] (a) aligning the robot such that its direction of travel is perpendicular to a sidewall of the pool.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to additionally combine the pool cleaning robot system of Goldenberg with the magnetometer-gyroscope heading calibration process as taught by Jain, and the pool related platform alignment of Garti, in order to yield predictable results.
The rationale for additionally combining with Garti would be align the robot’s magnetometer and gyroscope to ensure straight path scanning to more accurately travel along for example the sidewalls of a pool. As Garti describes, (Paragraph [0078]) “The robot controller 74 may be preprogrammed to perform scanning according to one of several algorithms, for example which take advantage of the fact that the alignment-detection mechanism 80 is adapted to ensure that the robot 12 scans along a straight path.”
Claim 20 Discloses: (New)
“The method according to claim 1, wherein the wherein the movable pool related platform is a pool cleaning robot, wherein the home direction leads to an exit point included in given sidewall of the pool,”
Goldenberg teaches, (Paragraph [0121], Lines 1-5) “At least one pool cleaning robot of the set may include at least one out of (i) a propulsion unit such as a drive system that is configured to move the pool cleaning robot, during a pool exit process, at a path that leads outside the pool.”
“wherein the moving the movable pool related platform along the home direction is based on (a) a first comparison between a gyroscope-based direction of movement estimate when reaching a first sidewall of the pool and a magnetometer-based direction of movement estimate when reaching the first sidewall of the pool, and (b) a second comparison between a gyroscope-based direction of movement estimate when reaching a second sidewall of the pool and a magnetometer-based direction of movement estimate when reaching the second sidewall of the pool, wherein the first sidewall of normal to the second sidewall and the given sidewall of the pool is parallel to the first sidewall or the second sidewall.”
Goldenberg and Jain do not teach the preceding limitations.
Garti does teach the preceding limitations.
Garti additionally teaches, “The robot may further comprise an alignment-detection mechanism. The alignment-detection mechanism may comprise a compass (which may be a digital compass) and a rate gyroscope (which may be a Micro-Electro-Mechanical System rate gyroscope).”
Garti additionally teaches, (Paragraph [0023, Lines 7-10 & Paragraph [0024], Lines 1-2) “the setup system being adapted to communicate with the controller to direct the robot to perform the following operations to determine at least some of the parameters: (a) aligning the robot such that its direction of travel is perpendicular to a sidewall of the pool,” wherein, (Paragraph [0049]) “straight lap comprises the robot scanning the pool in a straight path after one front detection, aligned so that its orientation is perpendicular to the detected sidewall, until another front detection occurs.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to additionally combine the pool cleaning robot system of Goldenberg with the magnetometer-gyroscope heading calibration process as taught by Jain, and the pool related platform alignment of Garti, in order to yield predictable results.
The rationale for additionally combining with Garti would be align the robot’s magnetometer and gyroscope to ensure straight path scanning to more accurately travel along for example the sidewalls of a pool. As Garti describes, (Paragraph [0078]) “The robot controller 74 may be preprogrammed to perform scanning according to one of several algorithms, for example which take advantage of the fact that the alignment-detection mechanism 80 is adapted to ensure that the robot 12 scans along a straight path.” Combining with Garti would additionally yield the benefits of complete coverage of the pool by implementing the straight lap configuration, (Paragraph [0079], Lines 16-17) “so that no area of the pool floor remains un-scanned.”
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldenberg in view of Jain, further in view of Garti, further in view of Non-Patent Literature Yang et al. (Complete Tri-Axis Magnetometer Calibration with a Gyro Auxiliary, hereinafter referred to as Yang).
Claim 13 Discloses: (Original)
Goldenberg does not teach the limitations of claim 13.
Jain and Garti do not explicitly teach, “defining the mapping as an arctangent of a ratio between the normalized first axis magnetometer readings and the normalized second axis magnetometer readings.”
Yang does teach, “defining the mapping as an arctangent of a ratio between the normalized first axis magnetometer readings and the normalized second axis magnetometer readings.”
Yang teaches, (Abstract, Lines 2-3) “This paper presents a complete tri-axis magnetometer calibration algorithm with a gyro auxiliary.”
Yang additionally teaches, (Page 6, Bottom 2 Lines of Page) “the magnetometer outputs are normalized,” and that, (Page 13, Bottom Paragraph, Lines 1-2) “Using the arctangent function, the heading angles are calculated form the output data of two-axis magnetometers.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the method of using a pool-related-platform of Goldenberg with the magnetometer/gyroscope calibration method of Jain, and the utilization of the arctangent function to derive heading angles taught by Yang, in order to yield predictable results.
The motivation for additionally combining the reference would be to utilize the arctangent function, the arctangent function being well known in the art, to calculate the heading angle based on a magnetometer’s readings. By directly measuring this quantity, heading errors can be measured and mitigated. As Yang describes, (Abstract, Line 8) “After calibration, the heading errors calculated by magnetometers are reduced to 0.5◦ (1σ).”
RELEVANT, BUT NOT CITED PRIOR ART
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Hallberg (US 2016/0327396 A1) discloses, (Paragraph [0004], Lines 1-7) “Inertial measurement units, also called inertial motion units, are devices that facilitate continuous computation of the orientation of the objects to which they are attached. By way of example, IMUs may be attached to human body limbs, robotic appendages, or aerial drones. IMUs typically have multiple single- or multi-axis sensors, such as gyroscopes, accelerometers, and magnetometers,” wherein, (Paragraph [0074]) “The IMU application 116 calculates the field quaternion by calculating a gravitational quaternion able to rotate an accelerometer reading so that a normalized Z-axis component of the accelerometer reading is equal to 1. The IMU application uses the gravitational quaternion to rotate a magnetometer reading, and sets the rotated magnetometer reading's Z-axis component to zero, creating an adjusted magnetometer reading. The IMU application calculates a magnetometer quaternion able to further rotate the adjusted magnetometer reading so that a normalized X-axis component is equal to −1, and then combines the gravitational quaternion and the magnetometer quaternion.”
Schloss et al. (US 2018/0135325 A1) teaches, (Abstract) “A method for remotely operating a robotic pool cleaner may include providing a robotic pool cleaner comprising a housing: a propulsion drive configured to propel the robotic pool cleaner along a surface of a pool; a pump for drawing liquid from the pool into the housing, so as to trap dirt and debris from the surface of the pool into a filter; a controller configured to communicate with a portable communication device, and control the propulsion drive in accordance with commands received from a the portable communication device; using the portable communication device, obtaining one or more characteristics of a surface of the pool; displaying a graphical representation of the pool on a display of the portable communication device; receiving a user input from a user via an input interface of the portable communication device; translating the user input into a command; and transmitting the command to a controller of the robotic pool cleaner, for execution by the robotic pool cleaner.”
Askarpour (EP 2677275 B1) teaches, (Paragraph [0017]) “Summarizing the above-described compensation method, preferably the magnetometer data is read for each axis as well as the gyro data for each axis. The gyro data is converted from body to inertial coordinates. The rate of change of heading based on the magnetometer readings over time is determined. The rate of change of heading is compared with the inertial coordinate rate of change of yaw from the gyros. Then, in accordance with the method of the present invention, the algorithm records the difference in rates of change if this difference is greater than a predetermined threshold value and uses it as a bias to correct for the soft iron impact on the magnetometer. On the other hand, if this difference is not greater than the predetermined threshold value, the algorithm uses the actual magnetometer value to correct for the drift in the gyros,” and that, (Paragraph [0029], Page 6 -Lines 58-59 & Page 7 - Line 1) “Like with the flow chart illustrated in FIG. 1, the flow chart of FIG. 3 … is illustrated as an iterative control loop 300 for repetitively compensating for any defined significant changes in the accuracy of the heading system due to soft iron magnetic disturbances.”
Withanawasam et al. (US 7,154,267 B2) teaches, (Abstract Lines 1-2 and Page 11, Column 1, Lines 12-14) “A method and system for calibrating a magnetic compass and/or verifying a compass calibration … Electronic compasses provide compassing capabilities in a variety of applications such as automobiles, airplanes, boats, and personal handheld devices,” and that, (Page 15, Column 9, Lines 55-58) “A saturation condition may occur when a system component within the magnetic compass has reached its maximum handling capacity.”
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ALEXANDER V. GENTILE whose telephone number is (703)756-1501. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5.
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, Kito R. Robinson can be reached at (571)270-3921. 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.
/ALEXANDER V GENTILE/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/KITO R ROBINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights