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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: There is a duplicate word in the limitation of lines 3-4 “cause the the processor”. A possible correction would read - - cause the processor - -.
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because it is directed to a computer-readable storage medium, which encompasses signals per se. A possible claim correction would read - - a non-transitory computer-readable medium - - . This is the interpretation that will be used in the rejections below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 5, 11-14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kitamura et al. (US PGPub 2007/0033818 A1).
As to claim 1, Kitamura et al. teaches a calibration method for an electronic compass (figure 7), comprising:
acquiring an initial sphere center coordinate of a current calibration (figure 7, step 2, paragraph [0063]);
acquiring a preset number of magnetic field data collected by a magnetic sensor (figure 7, step 3, paragraph [0079]);
determining a target magnetic field interference level of an environment according to the preset number of magnetic field data and the initial sphere center coordinate (figure 7, step 4, paragraphs [0065], [0070], and [0079]);
determining a target number of the magnetic field data according to the target magnetic field interference level (figure 7, step 6, paragraphs [0065], [0069], [0079]); and
performing spherical magnetic field fitting according to the target number of magnetic field data to calibrate the electronic compass (figure 7, step 7, paragraphs [0059] and [0080]).
As to claim 2, Kitamura et al. teaches wherein the determining the target magnetic field interference comprises:
for each of the preset number of magnetic field data, calculating a distance value between the magnetic field data and the initial sphere center coordinate;
acquiring a radius of a spherical magnetic field corresponding to the initial sphere center coordinate; and
determining the target magnetic field interference level of the environment according to the radius and the preset number of distance values (paragraph [0064]).
As to claim 5, Kitamura et al. teaches wherein the target number is n1 K1, n1 is an integer greater than or equal to 4 and K is an integer greater than or equal to 1 (figure 6).
As to claim 11, Kitamura et al. teaches wherein the determining the target number of the magnetic field data comprises: determining the target number of the magnetic field data corresponding to the target magnetic field interference level according to a correspondence relationship between a magnetic field interference level and a number of the magnetic field data (figure 6 and paragraphs [0081]-[0082]).
As to claim 12, Kitamura et al. teaches wherein the current calibration is not a first calibration, and the initial sphere center coordinate of the current calibration is a target sphere center coordinate of a previous calibration (paragraph [0079]).
As to claim 13, Kitamura et al. teaches an electronic device (paragraphs [0051] and [0067]), comprising:
a processor (for performing the method of figure 7); and
a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the the processor (for storing the method of figure 7) to:
acquire an initial sphere center coordinate of a current calibration (figure 7, step 2, paragraph [0063]);
acquire a preset number of magnetic field data collected by a magnetic sensor (figure 7, step 3, paragraph [0079]);
determine a target magnetic field interference level of an environment according to the preset number of magnetic field data and the initial sphere center coordinate (figure 7, step 4, paragraphs [0065], [0070], and [0079]);
determine a target number of the magnetic field data according to the target magnetic field interference level (figure 7, step 6, paragraphs [0065], [0069], [0079]); and
perform spherical magnetic field fitting according to the target number of magnetic field data to calibrate an electronic compass (figure 7, step 7, paragraphs [0059] and [0080]).
As to claim 14, Kitamura et al. teaches wherein the determining the target magnetic field interference level comprises:
for each of the preset number of magnetic field data, calculating a distance value between the magnetic field data and the initial sphere center coordinate;
acquiring a radius of a spherical magnetic field corresponding to the initial sphere center coordinate; and
determining the target magnetic field interference level of the environment according to the radius and the preset number of distance values (paragraph [0064]).
As to claim 20, Kitamura et al. teaches a computer-readable storage medium, storing computer program instructions thereon (for storing the method of figure 7 and figure 2), wherein when executed by a processor, cause the processor to:
acquire an initial sphere center coordinate of a current calibration(figure 7, step 2, paragraph [0063]);
acquire a preset number of magnetic field data collected by a magnetic sensor (figure 7, step 3, paragraph [0079]);
determine a target magnetic field interference level of an environment according to the preset number of magnetic field data and the initial sphere center coordinate (figure 7, step 4, paragraphs [0065], [0070], and [0079]);
determine a target number of the magnetic field data according to the target magnetic field interference level (figure 7, step 6, paragraphs [0065], [0069], [0079]); and
perform spherical magnetic field fitting according to the target number of magnetic field data to calibrate an electronic compass (figure 7, step 7, paragraphs [0059] and [0080]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 3-4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitamura et al. (US PGPub 2007/0033818 A1).
As to claims 3 and 15, Kitamura et al. teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as noted above for claims 2 and 14 respectively, further including calculating an error value (offset information; paragraphs [0065]-[0068]),
determining a target error range where the error value is located (figure 4 and paragraphs [0054]-[0055]), and
determining a magnetic field interference level corresponding to the target error range as the target magnetic field interference level of the environment (figure 6).
Kitamura et al. does not explicitly teach calculating an error value for estimating a spherical uniformity of the spherical magnetic field by a following formula, wherein err represents the error value, N represents the preset number, ri represents an i-th distance value, and R represents the radius of the spherical magnetic field corresponding to the initial sphere center coordinate:
e
r
r
=
∑
i
=
1
N
(
r
i
-
R
)
2
.
One skilled in the art would recognize the error calculation to be a representation of the physical world and system having a limited number of forms possible to allow one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to arrive at the above form through mathematics and the system being represented by the mathematical calculations with predictable results.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kitamura et al. to have calculating the error value by a following formula, wherein err represents the error value, N represents the preset number, ri represents an i-th distance value, and R represents the radius of the spherical magnetic field corresponding to the initial sphere center coordinate:
e
r
r
=
∑
i
=
1
N
(
r
i
-
R
)
2
because it is within the skill of an ordinary skilled person to represent the physical world through the error calculation above with predictable results.
As to claim 4, Kitamura et al. as modified teaches further comprising: calibrating the electronic compass according to a target sphere center coordinate of a previous calibration and a six-axis algorithm, in response to determining that the error value is greater than an upper limit value of an error range corresponding to a highest magnetic field interference level (figures 6-7).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-10 and 16-19 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 and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Patel et al. (US PGPub 2010/0312509 A1) and Tu et al. (US PGPub 2015/0000145 A1) teach systems with similarities to the disclosed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER E S BAHLS whose telephone number is (571)270-7807. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am-3:30 pm.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at (571) 272-2149. 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.
/JENNIFER BAHLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights