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 .
Appeal brief
In view of the Appeal brief filed on 05/27/2026, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. Newly USC 101, USC 112 and USC 103 rejections are set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/LEE E RODAK/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed inventions are directed to judicial exceptions (abstract ideas comprising mathematical concepts) without significantly more.
The claims recite mathematical relationships and calculations for processing magnetic field measurement data, including representing magnetic signal and magnetic noise as a tensor of second or higher order, tensor decomposing the measurement result, and segregating decomposition results into one representing the magnetic signal and one representing the magnetic noise.
Regarding Claim 1
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Claim 1 recites "a magnetic measuring section arranged to measure magnetic noise and a magnetic signal generated by a magnetic signal source as a tensor of second or higher order," "a tensor decomposing section arranged to tensor decompose a measurement result from the magnetic measuring section," and "a signal noise segregating section arranged to segregate a decomposition result from the tensor decomposing section into one representing the magnetic signal and one representing the magnetic noise."
These limitations recite mathematical relationships and mathematical calculations. The Specification at [0039] explains that tensor decomposition may employ CP decomposition, Tucker decomposition, or block term decomposition. The disclosed embodiment mathematically represents the measurement result as a tensor, performs CP decomposition by solving Formula (2), repeatedly calculates factor matrices according to Formulae (6)-(12), and expresses the decomposed measurement result according to Formula (13) ([0043]-[0064]).
The Specification further explains at [0065] that the decomposition results corresponding to the first and second terms on the right side of Formula (13) are segregated such that one represents the magnetic signal and the other represents the magnetic noise.
Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea within the mathematical concepts grouping.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The above identified mathematical concepts are not integrated into a practical application. The additional element includes the magnetic measuring section arranged to measure the magnetic noise and magnetic signal. The magnetic measuring section obtains the magnetic field measurement data upon which the recited mathematical tensor decomposition and signal/noise segregation are performed.
The Specification at [0002]-[0004] identifies difficulty in isolating a magnetic field generated by a magnetic signal source from environmental magnetic noise, including geomagnetic noise and alternating magnetic noise having the same frequency as an alternating magnetic signal, and identifies isolation of magnetic noise as an object of the invention. This asserted technological improvement has been considered.
However, the claim does not require an improvement in the operation of the magnetic measuring section itself. Rather, the magnetic measuring section obtains the magnetic field information that is subsequently mathematically represented, decomposed, and classified. Claim 1 terminates in segregating the decomposition result into one representing the magnetic signal and one representing the magnetic noise. The claim does not require the resulting segregation to adjust operation of the magnetic measuring section, control the magnetic signal source, produce a corrected physical measurement, control another device, or otherwise effect a further technological operation. Thus, the magnetic measuring section provides the input data for mathematical analysis. Gathering data for subsequent mathematical analysis constitutes insignificant pre solution activity where, as here, the data gathering does not meaningfully limit the judicial exception or otherwise integrate the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Accordingly, considered individually and in combination, the additional elements do not integrate mathematical concepts into a practical application.
Step 2B:
The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the identified mathematical concepts. The Specification at [0039] expressly states that methods of tensor decomposition are "well known," and identifies CP decomposition, Tucker decomposition, and block term decomposition as known tensor decomposition techniques.
Clark (US 2010/0211337 A 1) further evidences that magnetic gradient tensor measurements using magnetic sensors were known in the art before the effective filing date. Clark teaches that the gradient of a magnetic field in three dimensions is a second rank tensor and that full gradient tensor measurements may be obtained using a suitable magnetic gradient tensor sensor (Clark [0018]-[0019]). Clark further uses such tensor measurements to determine the anomalous magnetic field of a magnetized body in the presence of the much larger geomagnetic field (Clark [0020]). Thus, the additional magnetic measuring section performs the data acquisition activity necessary to supply magnetic field information to the recited mathematical processing. The remaining tensor representation, tensor decomposition, and segregation limitations constitute the mathematical concepts identified in Step 2A rather than additional elements providing an inventive concept. Considered individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the identified judicial exception.
Claims 2-10 further specify the magnetic measuring section as including a two dimensional sensor array (claim 2); movement in a third direction during measurement (claim 3); a one dimensional sensor array (claim 4); rotation about a rotation axis during measurement (claim 5); sensors arranged on a predetermined plane in three or more intersecting directions (claim 6); movement in a direction orthogonal to the plane during measurement (claim 7); a single magnetic sensor (claim 8); a three dimensional sensor array (claim 9); and sensors arranged on a curved plane (claim 10).
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Claims 2-10 retain the mathematical concepts identified with respect to claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The additional limitations further define the configuration, number, orientation, movement, or positioning of the magnetic sensors used to acquire the magnetic field measurement data. These limitations therefore further specify the manner in which the input data for the tensor decomposition and signal/noise segregation is obtained. The claims do not require the recited sensor configuration, movement, or rotation to be modified or controlled based upon the result of the tensor decomposition or signal/noise segregation. Rather, the sensor arrangements and movements are used to obtain the measurement data that is subsequently subjected to the mathematical processing of claim 1. The physical sensor arrangements have been considered. However, merely using a particular machine to gather data for subsequent performance of a judicial exception does not, without more, integrate the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.0S(b) and 2106.0S(g).
Accordingly, the additional limitations of claims 2-10 do not integrate the identified mathematical concepts into a practical application.
Step 2B:
The additional sensor limitations do not amount to significantly more when considered
individually or as an ordered combination with the limitations of claim 1. The sensor configurations provide magnetic field measurement data to the mathematical processing, while the claimed result remains the mathematical decomposition and segregation of the measured information.
Accordingly, claims 2-10 do not recite significantly more than the identified judicial exception.
Claims 11-14 depend on claim 1 and therefore include the mathematical concepts discussed above. Claim 11 further requires the tensor to be of third or higher order and to provide a measurement result associated with spatial position or position and time. Claim 12 requires three or more decomposition results, including a plurality representing magnetic noise having different magnetic gradient directions. Claim 13 requires the magnetic noise and magnetic signal each to have a constant value. Claim 14 requires the magnetic noise and magnetic signal to change over time.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
These limitations further define the mathematical representation, decomposition results, and characteristics of the information being mathematically processed. Claim 11 specifies the order and variables associated with the tensor; claim 12 specifies the number and characterization of the mathematical decomposition results; and claims 13 and 14 specify characteristics of the magnetic information subjected to the mathematical analysis.
Accordingly, claims 11-14 continue to recite the mathematical concepts identified with respect to claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The additional limitations do not require the resulting mathematically processed information to be used to control a physical device or process or otherwise effect a further technological operation. Rather, the limitations further characterize mathematical representation, decomposition results, or information being analyzed.
Accordingly, the additional limitations do not integrate the identified mathematical concepts into a practical application.
Step 2B:
The additional limitations further define the information and mathematical processing constituting the identified abstract idea rather than reciting additional elements providing an inventive concept. Considered individually and as an ordered combination, claims 11-14 do not amount to significantly more than the identified judicial exception.
Regarding Claims 15 and 16
Independent claim 15 recites a magnetic signal noise measuring method using a magnetic signal noise measuring apparatus and includes "tensor decomposing a measurement result from the magnetic measuring section" and "segregating a decomposition result from the tensor decomposing of the measurement result into one representing the magnetic signal and one representing the magnetic noise."
Independent claim 16 recites a non transitory computer readable medium including instructions for performing substantially the same magnetic signal noise measuring process.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
For substantially the reasons discussed with respect to claim 1, tensor decomposing the measurement result and segregating the resulting decomposition into magnetic signal and magnetic noise recite mathematical relationships and calculations. Accordingly, claims 15 and 16 recite an abstract idea within the mathematical concepts grouping.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The magnetic measuring apparatus and magnetic measuring section provide the magnetic field measurement data upon which the mathematical operations are performed.
Claims 15 and 16 terminate in segregating the decomposition result into information representing the magnetic signal and information representing the magnetic noise and do not require using the resulting information to control the magnetic measuring apparatus, magnetic signal source, or another physical device or process.
Accordingly, the data acquisition limitations constitute insignificant pre solution activity and do not integrate the identified mathematical concepts into a practical application.
Step 2B:
The Specification at (0039] expressly characterizes tensor decomposition methods as "well known." The remaining tensor decomposition and segregation limitations constitute the mathematical concepts identified in Step 2A. The magnetic measuring apparatus provides the data subjected to those mathematical operations.
Accordingly, considered individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the identified judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 17
Claim 17 depends on claim 1 and further recites "wherein the decomposition result is determined to be the one representing the magnetic noise when the decomposition result is obtained throughout a space in which the measurement result is measured."
Step 2A, Prong 1:
This limitation further recites analysis and classification of a mathematically obtained decomposition result. Specifically, the decomposition result is evaluated according to whether it is obtained throughout the measurement space and, based on that evaluation, is determined to represent magnetic noise.
The Specification at [0065] explains that geomagnetic noise is detected throughout the space in which the magnetic field is measured, whereas a magnetic field generated by one magnetic signal source is detected only in the vicinity of that source, and that the decomposition results may be segregated based on this distinction.
Accordingly, claim 17 further limits the mathematical analysis and classification constituting the identified abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
Claim 17 does not require any further technological operation based upon the determination that the decomposition result represents magnetic noise. The claim terminates with the determination itself. Thus, the limitation further defines the mathematical/ informational analysis rather than applying the result to effect a technological operation.
Accordingly, claim 17 does not integrate the identified judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
The additional determination further defines the analysis and classification of the mathematically decomposed information and therefore forms part of the identified abstract idea rather than constituting an additional element providing significantly more.
Accordingly, considered individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements of claim 17 do not amount to significantly more than the identified judicial exception.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
4. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
5. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: "a tensor decomposing section arranged to tensor decompose a measurement result from the magnetic measuring section" in claims 1-14 and 17.
The generic placeholder "section" is coupled with the functional language "arranged to tensor decompose a measurement result from the magnetic measuring section" without reciting sufficient structure for performing the recited tensor-decomposing function.
"a signal noise segregating section arranged to segregate a decomposition result from the tensor decomposing section into one representing the magnetic signal and one representing the magnetic noise" in claims 1-14 and 17.
The generic placeholder "section" is coupled with the functional language "arranged to segregate a decomposition result from the tensor decomposing section into one representing the magnetic signal and one representing the magnetic noise" without reciting sufficient structure for performing the recited segregating function.
Regarding claim 12, the limitation "the tensor decomposing section is arranged to provide three or more decomposition results" is also interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The generic placeholder "section" is further coupled with the functional language "arranged to provide three or more decomposition results" without reciting sufficient structure for performing the recited function..
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
6. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
8. Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites "a signal noise segregating section arranged to segregate a decomposition result from the tensor decomposing section into one representing the magnetic signal and one representing the magnetic noise."
The Specification describes tensor decomposition in detail. In particular, [0039] identifies CP decomposition, Tucker decomposition, and block term decomposition, and [0043]-[0064] describe an embodiment employing CP decomposition and obtaining first and second decomposition results according to Formula (13).
However, after the decomposition results are obtained, [0065] merely states that one of the first and second terms of Formula (13) represents the magnetic signal and the other represents the magnetic noise. The Specification does not disclose a general criterion or procedure for determining which decomposition result represents the magnetic signal and which represents the magnetic noise over the full scope of claim 1. Rather, [0065] discloses a particular circumstance in which, if the magnetic noise is the geomagnetic field, the magnetic field due to the noise is detected throughout the measurement space, whereas, if one magnetic signal source is provided, the magnetic field due to the magnetic signal detected only in the vicinity of the magnetic signal source. The Specification states that the decomposition results can be segregated "from this point of view." This disclosure demonstrates possession of a particular spatial criterion for distinguishing geomagnetic noise from a localized magnetic signal, but does not reasonably convey possession of the broadly claimed functionality of segregating a decomposition result into magnetic signal and magnetic noise without limitation as to the type of magnetic noise, type or number of magnetic signal sources, or criterion by which the decomposition results are identified as signal or noise. This is particularly significant because [0003] expressly recognizes situations in which an alternating magnetic signal and alternating magnetic noise have the same frequency, while the Specification does not identify how the decomposition results are segregated as signal and noise in such circumstances.
Regarding claim 15, the claim independently recites "segregating a decomposition result from the tensor decomposing of the measurement result into one representing the magnetic signal and one representing the magnetic noise." For the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1, the Specification does not reasonably convey possession of this segregation functional throughout its full claimed scope. The disclosed spatial criterion of [0065] represents a particular manner of identifying geomagnetic noise relative to a localized magnetic signal, but claim 15 is not limited to that criterion or circumstance. Accordingly, claim 15 lacks adequate written description support for the full scope of the recited segregation step.
Regarding claim 16, the claimed magnetic signal noise measuring process likewise independently recites "segregating a decomposition result from the tensor decomposing of the measurement result into one representing the magnetic signal and one representing the magnetic noise." For the same reasons discussed with respect to claims 1 and 15, the Specification does not reasonably convey possession of this segregation functionality throughout its full claimed scope.
Accordingly, claim 16 lacks adequate written description support for the full scope of the recited segregation operation.
Claims 2-14 and 17 are also rejected as being dependent on rejected base claim.
9. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
10. Claims 1-14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation "a signal noise segregating section arranged to segregate a decomposition result from the tensor decomposing section into one representing the magnetic signal and one representing the magnetic noise" is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Although the limitation does not use the term "means," the term "section" constitutes a generic placeholder modified by functional language and does not itself recite sufficient structure for performing the claimed function of segregating the decomposition result into one representing the magnetic signal and one representing the magnetic noise. Accordingly, the limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and is limited to the corresponding structure disclosed in the Specification for performing the claimed function and equivalents thereof. For a computer implemented functional limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the corresponding structure must include an algorithm sufficient to perform the entire claimed function. The Specification describes the tensor decomposition operation in detail. In particular, [0039] identifies CP decomposition, Tucker decomposition, and block term decomposition, and [0043]-[0064] describe CP decomposition and the mathematical operations resulting in the first and second decomposition terms of Formula (13).
However, these disclosed operations provide the decomposition results; they do not provide an algorithm for performing the separately claimed function of determining which decomposition result represents the magnetic signal and which decomposition result represents the magnetic noise throughout the scope of claim 1.
Specifically, [0065] states that one of the first and second terms on the right side of Formula (13) represents the magnetic signal and the other represents the magnetic noise but does not generally identify which term represents the signal and which term represents the noise. Paragraph [0065] thereafter describes a particular circumstance in which, if the magnetic noise is the geomagnetic field, the magnetic field due to the magnetic noise is detected throughout the measurement space, whereas, if one magnetic signal source is provided, the magnetic field due to the magnetic signal is detected only in the vicinity of the magnetic signal source. The Specification states that the decomposition results can be segregated "from this point of view."
Thus, the Specification discloses a particular spatial criterion applicable to the disclosed circumstance of geomagnetic noise and a localized magnetic signal source but does not disclose sufficient corresponding structure or algorithm for performing the entire claimed function of segregating a decomposition result into one representing the magnetic signal and one representing the magnetic noise over the full scope of claim 1. Because sufficient corresponding structure for performing the entire claimed function cannot be identified in the Specification, the scope of the "signal noise segregating section" limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) cannot be determined with reasonable certainty. Claim 1 is therefore indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claims 2-14 and 17 are also rejected as being dependent on rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. 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 of this title, 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 1, 8, 11-12, 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark (US 2010/0211337 A1) in view of Wang (CN108107451A).
Regarding claim 1, Clark teaches "a magnetic signal noise measuring apparatus, comprising:" a magnetic gradient tensor measuring apparatus for detecting and characterizing a magnetized body using magnetic gradient tensor measurements ([0018]-[0020]).
Clark teaches "a magnetic measuring section arranged to measure magnetic noise and a
magnetic signal generated by a magnetic signal source as a tensor of second or higher order;" wherein the gradient of a magnetic field in three dimensions is a second rank tensor and full gradient tensor measurements are obtained using a magnetic gradient tensor sensor ([0018]). Clark further teaches determining the anomalous magnetic field associated with a magnetized body in the presence of the much larger geomagnetic field ([0019]-[0020]),
"a signal noise segregating section arranged to segregate a decomposition result from the tensor decomposing section into one representing the magnetic signal and one representing the magnetic noise," (estimates and removes background interference terms from the measured tensor elements and repeats the analysis on the corrected data [0023], further models the individual gradient tensor elements and background interference terms and solves for the source/model parameters and background gradients of various orders [0028]-[0032].
Clark further teaches that estimating and removing the background interference terms, drifts, and non dipole terms provide an almost pure dipole signature [0128]).
Clark does not expressly teach "a tensor decomposing section arranged to tensor decompose a measurement result from the magnetic measuring section."
WANG in a relevant art teaches "a tensor decomposing section arranged to tensor decompose a measurement result from the magnetic measuring section," wherein a vector sensor is used to obtain a third order tensor model containing spatial, temporal, and polarization domain information, and CP (Canonical Polyadic) decomposition is performed on the tensor to obtain signal information ([0007]). WANG further teaches combining signal sampling points obtained from a plurality of vector sensors into matrices and using the matrices obtained at a plurality of sampling times to form a third order tensor model of the received signal ([0011]-[0013]). WANG thereafter performs CP decomposition on the signal measurement model ([0015]-[0018]). WANG further teaches that the vector sensors may be all electromagnetic vector sensors capable of measuring magnetic field information in three spatial directions ([0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Clark to apply the CP tensor decomposition taught by WANG to Clark's magnetic gradient tensor measurement data to more effectively resolve the constituent information contained in the multidimensional sensor measurements. Clark seeks to determine magnetic source information in the presence of background magnetic interference and processes the measured tensor elements to estimate source parameters and background gradients. WANG teaches that CP decomposition distinguishes information contained in different domains of multidimensional vector sensor data and obtains constituent signal information, while reducing computational burden and improving determination accuracy ([0021]). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to employ WANG's known CP tensor decomposition technique in Clark's tensor processing system to facilitate resolution of the source related and background related information contained in Clark's magnetic tensor measurements, with the predictable benefits of efficient processing and improved determination accuracy.
Regarding claim 8, Clark in view of WANG teaches the magnetic measuring section includes a single magnetic sensor ([0127-0129]).
Regarding claim 11, Clark does not explicitly teach wherein the tensor is of third or higher order and provides a result of measurement of the magnetic signal and the magnetic noise associated with a spatial position or the position and time,
WANG expressly teaches a third order tensor model containing spatial, temporal, and
Polarization domain information ([0007]). WANG further teaches that JxL signal sampling points
obtained simultaneously are combined into a matrix and that matrices obtained at K sampling
times in the time domain are used to form the third order tensor model ([0011]-[0013]).
WANG thereafter obtains spatial information from the CP decomposition and extracts position information. Thus, WANG expressly teaches a tensor of third order whose measurement information is associated with spatial position and time.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to organize Clark's magnetic tensor measurements according to the spatial/time tensor arrangement taught by WANG in order to preserve and process spatially and temporally associated measurement information. WANG expressly teaches that its third order tensor preserves multidomain information and permits extraction of spatial position information.
Regarding claim 12, Clark does not explicitly teach wherein the tensor decomposing section is arranged to provide three or more decomposition results, and a plurality of the decomposition results are ones representing the magnetic noise having magnetic gradient directions different from each other
WANG teaches CP decomposition of a third order tensor into a plurality of constituent components. WANG expressly defines R as the number of interfering signals represented in the tensor, with R being less than JxL, and represents the signal tensor using tensor outer products and corresponding factor matrices ([0011]-[0013], [0030]-[0032]). Thus, R is not limited to two and encompasses three or more constituent/decomposition results. WANG further teaches obtaining the spatial information associated with the respective decomposed interference signals and determining spatial azimuth angle er and elevation angle cpr for the r th signal ([0039]-[0047]). The disclosed embodiment includes interference signals having different spatial directions, e.g., (120°, 90°) and (100°, 60°) ([0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, when applying WANG's CP
decomposition to Clark's magnetic gradient tensor measurements, to separately decompose
multiple background/interference contributions having different spatial directions, because Clark expressly processes magnetic tensor measurements to estimate and remove background interference and WANG teaches CP decomposition for distinguishing multiple interference components according to their spatial information. The resulting components corresponding to Clark's magnetic background interference constitute magnetic noise components associated with different spatial magnetic gradient directions.
Regarding claim 15, the method recited is intrinsic to the apparatus recited in claim 1, as disclosed by Clark (US2010/0211337A1) in view of Wang (CN108107451A) as the recited method steps will be performed during the normal operation of the apparatus, as discussed above with regard to claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, the structure recited is intrinsic to the method recited in claim 15, as disclosed by Clark (US2010/0211337A1) in view of Wang (CN108107451A) as the recited structure will be used during the normal operation of the method, as discussed above with regard to claim 15. Clark as modified further teach A non-transitory computer readable medium including a program of instructions for execution by a computer [0013].
Regarding claim 17, Clark further teaches determining a magnetic source in the presence of a substantially larger geomagnetic/background magnetic field and estimating and removing background interference from the measured magnetic gradient tensor data. WANG teaches forming a tensor containing spatial information and performing CP decomposition to obtain the spatial information associated with respective constituent signals ([0007]). WANG further teaches extracting spatial position information associated with respective decomposition components ([0021], [0039]-[0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, when using WANG's spatial CP decomposition to separate Clark's localized magnetic source contribution from Clark's background magnetic interference, to identify a decomposition component occurring throughout the measured spatial region as background/noise rather than as the localized magnetic source contribution. Clark expressly distinguishes the magnetic source/anomaly from the background magnetic field, while WANG expressly provides spatial information for the individual decomposed components. Using the spatial extent of a decomposed component to distinguish broadly distributed background interference from a spatially localized source would have been a predictable use of the spatial information expressly produced by WANG's decomposition.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark (US
2010/0211337 A1), WANG (CN108107451A) as applied to the rejection of claim 1 above further in view of Sherman (US 2009/0189603A1).
Regarding claim 2, Clark as modified by WANG do not expressly teach "the magnetic measuring section is a two dimensional sensor array with magnetic sensors arranged in a first direction and a second direction that are orthogonal to each other."
Sherman in a relevant art teaches a magnetic sensor arrangement 348 comprising
a plurality of magnetic sensors 350 secured to a sensor board 370 ([0092]-[0094], Fig. 20).
Sherman teaches that the magnetic sensors measure X-, Y-, and Z-components of the
three dimensional magnetic field at the spatial locations of the respective sensors. Sherman
further expressly defines orthogonal X- and Y-directions on the sensor board and positions the
magnetic sensors at specified X-Y coordinates, including sensors extending from a central
location along the X and Y directions ([0095]-[0096], Fig. 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ Sherman's
two dimensional X-Y magnetic sensor arrangement in Clark's magnetic measuring section to
obtain magnetic field measurements at known spatial locations in two orthogonal directions.
Sherman teaches that using multiple magnetic sensors at different locations provides
measurement redundancy and increases accuracy in characterizing the three dimensional
magnetic field ([0101]).
Regarding claim 3, Clark as modified by WANG does not explicitly teach moved in a third direction orthogonal to the first direction and the second direction during measurement.
Sherman in a relevant art teaches, magnetic sensors arranged in first and second orthogonal X and Y directions on a sensor board (Fig. 20; [0095]-[0096]), and further expressly identifies a Z-axis relative to the X-Y sensor arrangement ([0142]-[0144]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to move Clark's expressly movable magnetic measuring section in the third/Z direction orthogonal to Sherman's X and Y directions in order to obtain magnetic measurements at different spatial positions relative to the magnetic source in order to gain advantage of measurement redundancy and increases accuracy in characterizing the three dimensional magnetic field ([0101]).
Regarding claim 4, Clark as modified by WANG does not explicitly teach sensors arranged in one of a first direction and a second direction that are orthogonal to each other
Sherman teaches a magnetic sensor arrangement 348 comprising a plurality of magnetic
sensors 350 secured to sensor board 370 ([0092]-[0094], Fig. 20). Sherman further teaches
defined orthogonal X and Y directions on the sensor board and magnetic sensors disposed at
different X-Y coordinate positions, including sensors positioned along the respective X and Y
directions (Fig. 20; [0095]-[0096]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ a row of Sherman's magnetic sensors extending along either one of the X or Y directions as a one dimensional sensor array. Selecting sensors along only one of Sherman's expressly disclosed orthogonal sensor directions amounts to a predictable selection of a known sensor array configuration where measurements along one spatial dimension are desired.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark (US
2010/0211337 A1), WANG (CN108107451A), Sherman (US 2009/0189603A1) as applied to the rejection of claim 2 above further in view of Wilson (US 4,767,988).
Regarding claim 5, Clark as modified does not expressly teach "the magnetic measuring section is arranged to be rotated about a rotation axis running in the first direction or the second direction during measurement."
However, Wilson in a relevant art teaches a three component vector magnetometer having outputs representing magnetic field strength in substantially orthogonal directions and expressly teaches causing the magnetometer to rotate about at least two substantially orthogonal axes while measuring changes in the magnetometer outputs. Wilson further explains that its sensors measure fluctuations in three independent magnetic field components as the sensor platform undergoes angular fluctuations (col. 2 lines 21-53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the magnetic measuring section of Clark as modified by WANG and Sherman with the rotational measurement arrangement taught by Wilson in order to obtain magnetic field measurements at different angular orientations about orthogonal axes. Wilson expressly teaches that such rotation permits determination of the magnetic field direction from changes in the magnetometer outputs without requiring the absolute values of the magnetic field components.
Claims 6-7, 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark (US 2010/0211337 A1), WANG (CN108107451A), as applied to the rejection of claim 1 above further in view of Pan (CN109188315A).
Regarding claims 6, 7, Clark as modified by WANG do not expressly teach "the magnetic measuring section includes magnetic sensors arranged on a predetermined plane and in three or more directions intersecting with each other at one point."
PAN teaches a planar cross shaped magnetic sensor array for a magnetic gradiometer. The reference expressly provides four horizontal guide rods 6 with corresponding sensor adjustment devices 5, wherein the four horizontal guide rods are arranged at 90° angles
to one another about main shaft 7 ([0037]-[0038]; Fig. 3). PAN further identifies Fig. 1
and Fig. 3 as cross shaped magnetic sensor array arrangements and teaches planar
sensor array magnetic gradiometers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ the cross shaped planar magnetic sensor arrangement of PAN in Clark's magnetic measuring section to
obtain spatially separated magnetic measurements in multiple directions about a common location for magnetic gradient determination. PAN teaches that magnetic gradient meters use arrays of magnetic sensors to collect data for post processing and identifies cross shaped and other planar arrays as known magnetic gradient sensor arrangements.
Regarding claim 9, Clark as modified by WANG does not expressly teach "the magnetic measuring section is a three dimensional sensor array with magnetic sensors arranged in a first direction, a second direction, and a third direction that are orthogonal to each other."
PAN expressly teaches extending its planar magnetic sensor array in the vertical dimension to provide a three dimensional sensor array, including a regular hexahedral magnetic sensor array ([0014]). PAN further teaches vertical baseline distance DV and horizontal baseline distance DH and expressly states that the structure can form a regular hexahedral sensor array ([0042]-[0044]). The reference further identifies a "cubic hexahedral" sensor array structure in connection with Fig. 9.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ the three dimensional magnetic sensor array of PAN in Clark's magnetic measuring section to obtain magnetic gradient measurements at spatially separated positions in three dimensions. PAN expressly explains that three dimensional sensor array magnetic gradiometers are used to reduce the influence of the Earth's magnetic field on magnetic target detection.
Regarding claim 13, Clark does not explicitly teach wherein the magnetic noise and the magnetic signal each have a constant value.
PAN further teaches producing a magnetic field having a stable amplitude and providing a uniform magnetic field region for magnetic sensor/gradiometer measurement and calibration.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the magnetic tensor measurement and source/background segregation of Clark under a steady state measurement condition in which the magnetic source and background magnetic field remain constant during the measurement interval. The claim does not specify a duration over which the values must remain constant, a particular constant magnitude, or that the values must remain constant indefinitely. Using steady magnetic field conditions represents a predictable operating condition for magnetic measurement, as evidenced by PAN’s express use of a stable magnetic field for magnetic sensor/gradiometer measurement.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark (US
2010/0211337 A1), WANG (CN108107451A), as applied to the rejection of claim 1 above further in view of Lynde (US2017/0030981A1).
Regarding claim 10, Clark as modified by WANG do not expressly teach "the magnetic measuring section includes a plurality of magnetic sensors arranged on a curved plane."
Lynde in a relevant art teaches a magnetic sensor array comprising a plurality of
magnetic sensors 104 disposed on substrate 102. Lynde teaches arrays including at least 2x2
and 8x8 magnetic sensors ([0042)-[0043]). Lynde further expressly teaches that substrate 102
may be a flexible substrate for conforming the magnetic sensors 104 to a curved surface and
alternatively, expressly teaches that "the substrate can include a curved substrate" ([0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrange the plurality of magnetic sensors of Clark's measuring section on the curved/flexible substrate taught by Lynde where magnetic measurements are required over a curved measurement surface. Lynde expressly identifies conforming the magnetic sensors to a curved surface as the purpose of the flexible substrate.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark (US
2010/0211337 A1), WANG (CN108107451A), as applied to the rejection of claim 1 above further in view of Wilson (US Patent 4767988).
Regarding claim 14, Clark as modified by WANG does not explicitly teach wherein the magnetic noise and the magnetic signal change over time.
However, Wilson in a relevant art teaches a magnetic measuring arrangement in which magnetometer outputs change over time as the measuring platform undergoes angular fluctuations and expressly measures changes in magnetic field outputs while the magnetometer rotates about substantially orthogonal axes. Wilson further teaches measuring fluctuations in three independent components of the magnetic field during angular fluctuations of the sensor platform (col. 2, lines 27-31, col. 3 lines 66- col. 4 line 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the tensor measurement and decomposition of Clark and WANG to time varying magnetic measurements, including measurements in which both the source related magnetic component and background/noise component vary with time, because WANG expressly incorporates a time dimension into its third order tensor and Wilson demonstrates that magnetic field measurement components may be monitored as they vary over time.
Conclusion
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Derksen (US Publication 20210338171) discloses TENSOR AMPLIFICATION-BASED DATA PROCESSING.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAQI R NASIR whose telephone number is (571)270-1425. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached at (571) 270-5628. 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.
/TAQI R NASIR/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights