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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/05/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Para[0004] line 5 recites “roatation” which should be “rotation”.
Para[0017] lines 7-8 recites “The latter at least when using two to six disc magnets.”, which should be corrected to explain clearly what “latter is referring to” and to correct it to make it a complete sentence .
Para[0071] lines 2-3 recite “These individual magnets M were divided into segments 101” twice, which should be corrected.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, 10, and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 1 recites “the actual position”, which should be “an actual position”.
Claim 1 line 3 recites “which,”, which should be removed.
Claim 1 lines 3-4 recite “the three room axes”, which should be “three room axes”.
Claim 2 line 3 recites “the individual magnets (M)”, which should be “the plurality of rotationally symmetrical magnets (M)”.
Claim 2 line 4 recites “the basic magnetic field value position”, which should be “the base magnetic field value position”.
Claim 2 line 5 recites “the respective individual magnet (M)”, which should be “a respective one of the plurality of rotationally symmetrical magnets (M)”.
Claim 2 line 6 and Claim 4 lines 4-5 recite “the individual magnet”, which should be “the respective one of the plurality of rotationally symmetrical magnets”.
Claim 4 line 2 and Claim 5 line 3 recite “the basic magnetic field values”, which should be “the base magnetic field values”.
Claim 5 line 3 recites “identical individual magnets (M)”, which should be “rotationally symmetrical individual magnets (M)”.
Claim 5 line 4 recites “the respective magnetic constant”, which should be “a respective magnetic constant”.
Claim 7 line 2 recites “the distance”, which should be “a distance”.
Claim 10 line 3 recites “the Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm”, which should be “a Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm”.
Claim 13 line 2 recites “the granularity”, which should be “a granularity”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites a method for determining the actual position of a magnet structure in space but then does not recite any method steps for determining the position. It is unclear what is the claimed determining method. Therefore claims 1 and further dependent claims 2-21 are indefinite.
Claim 1 line 4 recites “(actual position)” and “(actual orientation)”. The limitations in parenthesis may lead to confusion over the intended scope of the claim because it is not clear whether the limitations in parenthesis are in fact a limitation. Therefore, the claim is indefinite because the intended scope of the claim is unclear. Therefore claims 1 and further dependent claims 2-21 are indefinite.
Claim 1 line 14 recites “the position”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Clam 1 line 23 recites “the arrangement”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 line 25 recites “an asymmetrical magnet structure”. It is unclear if this is a separate asymmetrical magnet structure as “an asymmetrical magnet structure” in Claim 1 line 14, rendering this limitation in the claim as indefinite.
Claim 2 line 2 and claim 6 line 2 recite “the calculation”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Examiner interprets “calculation” as “calculation of the magnetic field”.
Claim 2 line 7 recites “the calculated magnetic field for the partial plane (FE)”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 line 6 recites “this calculation”. It is unclear as to which calculation “this calculation” is referring to, rendering this limitation in the claim as indefinite.
Claim 5 line 2 recites “rotationally symmetrical individual magnets (M)”. It is unclear if these are the same magnets as the “plurality of rotationally symmetrical magnets (M)” in Claim 1 line 26, rendering this limitation in the claim as indefinite.
Claim 5 line 4 recites “calculated independently of the respective magnetic constant”. It is unclear how a magnetic field can be calculated independently of the magnetic constant, rendering this limitation in the claim as indefinite. Examiner will interpret the limitation as calculating a magnetic field that is constant, hence independent of the magnetic constant.
Claim 9 line 2 and Claim 12 line 3 recite “the neural network”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 line 1 and Claim 19 line 2 recite “a computerised method”. It is unclear if this is a separate method from “A computer-aided method” in Claim 1 line 1, rendering these limitations in the claims as indefinite.
Claim 15 line 1 recites “A magnet structure”. It is unclear if this is a separate magnet structure than “a magnet structure” in Claim 1 line 2, rendering this limitation in the claim as indefinite.
Claim 15 line 3, Claim 16 lines 1 and 3, Claim 17 lines 1 and 3, and Claim 18 lines 1 and 3 recite “the magnet structure”, even though Claim 1 line 2 recites “A magnet structure” and Claim 15 line 1 recites “a magnet structure”. It is unclear which magnet structure “the magnet structure” is referring to, rendering these limitations in the claims as indefinite.
Claim 19 line 1 recites “A use of a magnet structure”, but does not recite any limitations indicating how the magnet structure is being used, rendering this limitation in the claim as indefinite.
Claim 19 lines 1 and 3 recites “a magnet structure”. It is unclear if this is a separate magnet structure than “a magnet structure” in Claim 1 line 2 or “A magnet structure” in Claim 15 line 1, rendering this limitation in the claim as indefinite.
Claim 19 line 3 recites “a space”. It is unclear if this is a separate space than “a space” in Claim 1 line 2, rendering this limitation in the claim as indefinite.
Claim 19 line 3 recites “an analysis module”. It is unclear if this is a separate analysis module than “an analysis module” in Claim 1 line 6, rendering this limitation in the claim as indefinite.
Claim 19 lines 4-26 are replete with limitations that are indefinite.
Claim 20 lines 1-2 recite “an analysing module”. It is unclear if it is a separate module than “an analysis module” in Claim 1 line 6, rendering this limitation in the claim as indefinite.
Claim 20 lines 3-5 recite “wherein the computer-assisted method according to Claim 1 is used
and/or which comprises a magnet structure”. It is unclear how a method can either be used or it comprises a magnet structure, rendering this limitation in the claim as indefinite.
Claim 20 line 4 recites “a magnet structure”. It is unclear if this is a separate magnet structure than “a magnet structure” in Claim 1 line 2, rendering this limitation in the claim as indefinite.
Claim 20 line 5 recites “the magnet structure”, even though Claim 1 line 2 recites “A magnet structure” and Claim 20 line 4 recites “a magnet structure”. It is unclear which magnet structure “the magnet structure” is referring to, rendering this limitation in the claim as indefinite.
Claim 21 line 1 recites “The use of a magnetic field tracking station”, but does not recite any limitations indicating how the magnetic field tracking station is being used, rendering this limitation in the claim as indefinite.
Claim 21 line 1 recites “The use of a magnetic field tracking station”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 line 1 recites “a magnetic field tracking station”. It is unclear if this is a separate magnet field tracking station than “a magnetic field tracking station” in Claim 20 line 1, rendering this limitation in the claim as indefinite.
Claim 21 line 5 recites “the magnetic field tracking station”, even though Claim 20 line 1 recites “A magnetic field tracking station” and Claim 21 line 1 recites “a magnetic field tracking station”. It is unclear which magnetic field tracking station “the magnetic field tracking station” is referring to, rendering this limitation in the claim as indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 7, 11, 14, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meina (“Position tracking using inertial and magnetic sensing aided by permanent magnet”) in view of Rutledge (US 20120215475 A1).
With regards to Claim 1, Meina teaches
wherein the actual position is a 6D pose which, with reference to the three room axes three position values x, y, z (actual position,. and three orientation values Rx, Ry, Rz (actual orientation) (See Abstract “Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) is used to obtain 6-dof position exploiting the so-called ZUPT technique by the means of the Kalman Filter” and the Introduction Para[0001] “inertial sensors are commonly used for construction of 6-dof (orientation and position) spatial tracking systems”.),
carries out the actual position determination on the basis of measurement data of a magnetic field (F) of the magnet structure (See Abstract “Additional corrections of position (i.e. carries out the actual position determination) are done using magnetometer readings (i.e. on the basis of measurement data of a magnetic field (F)) in the presence of static magnetic field induced by permanent magnet (i.e. of the magnet structure) that overshadow geomagnetic field.”), uses a data set for the actual position determination, wherein the data set has entries (See Section III C Para[0006] “one can apply a hierarchical decomposition of simplices (i.e. the data set has entries), which represents collection of simplices in the form of binary search tree (i.e. uses a data set for the actual position determination)”.), by which base magnetic field value positions relative to the magnet structure in the space are assigned corresponding base magnetic field values of the magnetic field of the magnet structure (See equation (5), where the vertices pik are the base magnetic field value positions of the magnetic field of the magnet structure as they correspond to the vertices of a simplex upon which the magnetic field is evaluated, so each vertex is assigned a corresponding base magnetic field value of the magnetic field of the magnet structure),
wherein the data set has a data structure and the base magnetic field value position is determined from the position of the respective entry within the data structure (See Section III C Para[0006] “one can apply a hierarchical decomposition of simplices, which represents collection of simplices in the form of binary search tree (i.e. the data set has a data structure)”, and see equation (5), where the vertices pik are the positions used to determine the base magnetic field value positions within the data structure), wherein
a) for an asymmetrical magnet structure, the data structure corresponds to a search tree with several pointers which enable navigation through the data structure, wherein the data structure consists of a collection of nodes that form a tree, whereby the nodes are either data nodes or reference nodes, whereby the reference nodes contain pointers that point to further nodes and allow the data structure to be searched, whereby the data nodes contain an entry in which the magnetic field is stored by means of a three-dimensional vector, whereby the base magnetic field value position results from the arrangement of the data node within the data structure and can be determined by means of the pointers, or (Examiner notes that an option is recited here because of “or”. Optional limitations are considered non-limiting.)
Meina is silent to the language of
an analysis module, and
b) for a symmetrical or for an asymmetrical magnet structure formed from a plurality of rotationally symmetrical magnets (M) the data structure corresponds to a simple table.
Rutledge teaches
an analysis module, and (See Fig. 8, the ARM processor 69)
b) for a symmetrical or for an asymmetrical magnet structure formed from a plurality of rotationally symmetrical magnets (M) (See Fig. 3, the components between 51 and 52 inclusive is the symmetrical magnet structure as it is symmetrical about the longitudinal axis of the figure, and it has a plurality of four rotationally symmetric magnets (M), which are the magnets 54. They are rotationally symmetric around their respective cylindrical axes.) the data structure corresponds to a simple table (See Fig. 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Meina wherein an analysis module is used and for a symmetrical or for an asymmetrical magnet structure formed from a plurality of rotationally symmetrical magnets (M) the data structure corresponds to a simple table like in Rutledge in order to have a more compartmentalized design to analyze the position of the magnet structure via the analysis module and to break down the permanent magnet in Meina into more manageable pieces that are symmetrical to make calculation of the magnetic field easier via the lookup table.
With regards to Claim 3, Meina and Rutledge teach the limitations of Claim 1. Meina is silent to the language of
wherein a measuring station is provided, the magnetic field being detected by means of a plurality of sensors of the measuring station for the purpose of generating the measurement data.
Rutledge teaches
wherein a measuring station is provided (See Fig. 8, the entire figure), the magnetic field being detected by means of a plurality of sensors of the measuring station for the purpose of generating the measurement data (See Fig. 8, where the plurality of sensors is the 4 different “Melexis Tri-axis Sensor 55”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Meina wherein a measuring station is provided, the magnetic field being detected by means of a plurality of sensors of the measuring station for the purpose of generating the measurement data like in Rutledge in order to have a well-defined structure as to how the measurement data is generated.
With regards to Claim 4, Meina and Rutledge teach the limitations of Claim 1. Meina further teaches
wherein the basic magnetic field values of the magnet structure (See equation 4) or of the respective rotationally symmetrical individual magnet (M) have been calculated (Examiner notes that an option is recited here because of “or”. Optional limitations are considered non-limiting.), at least one segment of the magnet structure or of the individual magnet (M) having been approximated at least once by means of dipole approximation for the purpose of this calculation (See Section III A Para[0004] “For this reason, we have investigated and compared different techniques: (1) dipole model”. In this case, the one segment is the entire permanent magnet).
With regards to Claim 7, Meina and Rutledge teach the limitations of Claim 1. Meina is silent to the language of
wherein the distance between the base magnetic field value positions of two spatially closest entries varies.
Rutledge teaches
wherein the distance between the base magnetic field value positions of two spatially closest entries varies (See Fig. 21, where consecutive positions of Z change at different intervals.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Meina wherein the distance between the base magnetic field value positions of two spatially closest entries varies like in Rutledge in order to have a data set that accurately reflects the changes of the magnetic field by sampling points in uneven intervals (see Rutledge fig. 21).
With regards to Claim 11, Meina and Rutledge teach the limitations of Claim 1. Meina further teaches
wherein a transfer function is used to select entries of the data set which represent or correspond to a desired position of the magnet structure. (See equation 5, where the equation selects a pik that is an entry of the data set of simplex vertices that correspond to a desired position of the magnet structure as the value p of the left hand side is built from pik values and p corresponds to the position of the magnetic field in relation to the magnet structure, therefore making pik correspond to the position of the magnet structure.).
With regards to claim 14, Meina and Rutledge teach the limitations of Claim 1. Meina is silent to the language of
wherein in that, prior to determining the actual position, the magnet structure is attached to a body whose position in the space is to be determined, the position of the body in the space being determined from the determined actual positions.
Rutledge teaches
wherein in that, prior to determining the actual position, the magnet structure is attached to a body whose position in the space is to be determined, the position of the body in the space being determined from the determined actual positions. (See Fig. 4, where the entire figure is the body (i.e. magnetic UID 50), and the magnet structure, which is the collection of components between 51 and 52 inclusive, which include the four magnets 54, is attached to it. The position of the body is determined from the actual positions of the four sensors 54, see Fig. 9, which provides the position of the magnet 54 which is contained in the body of Fig. 4. The magnet structure is attached to the body before the determination of the actual position as the magnetic UID is manufactured before the method steps in Rutledge. See also Para[0070] “(magnetic UID)" refer to any user interface device that utilizes, among other specialized components, a magnet or magnets that correspond to and move with respect to a magnetic sensor or magnetic sensors”, Para[0070] “The magnet(s) or magnetic sensor(s) (i.e. part of the body) are typically mounted onto some form of a manual actuator in a known or predefined arrangement.”, and Para[0072] “When the position of a magnetic sensor (i.e. position of the body, as the magnetic sensor is part of the body) is referenced herein, the referenced sensor position refers to a point within the sensor package where the magnetic fields are measured.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Meina wherein in that, prior to determining the actual position, the magnet structure is attached to a body whose position in the space is to be determined, the position of the body in the space being determined from the determined actual positions like in Rutledge in order to have a more expansive application of using the actual position of the magnet structure to determine positions of other objects affiliated with it.
With regards to Claim 20, Meina and Rutledge teach the limitations of Claim 1. Meina further teaches
wherein the computer-assisted method according to claim 1 is used (See Abstract “a method for spatial tracking of a strapdown device that can be used for design of human computer interfaces.”) and/or which comprises a magnet structure wherein a combination of at least a first pair of magnets is used for the magnet structure (Examiner notes that an option is recited here because of “and/or”. Optional limitations are considered non-limiting.).
Meina is silent to the language of
a magnetic field tracking station comprising an analysing module and/or a measuring station.
Rutledge teaches
a magnetic field tracking station (See Fig. 8, the entire figure) comprising an analysing module (See Fig. 8, the ARM Processor 69) and/or a measuring station (Examiner notes that an option is recited here because of “and/or”. Optional limitations are considered non-limiting.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Meina wherein a magnetic field tracking station comprising an analysing module and/or a measuring station is used like in Rutledge order to have a well-defined structure as to how the measurement data is generated and processed.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meina and Rutledge as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Frosell (US 20160047228 A1) and Ng (US 20200272235 A1).
With regards to claim 2, Meina and Rutledge teach the limitations of Claim 1. Meina further teaches
the calculation (See equation 4, where the magnetic field is calculated).
Meina and Rutledge are silent to the language of
a) the magnet structure was divided into the individual magnets (M),
b) the basic magnetic field value position was calculated at least for a partial plane (FE) of the magnetic field (F) of the respective individual magnet (M), and
c) the magnetic field (F) of the individual magnet is determined on the basis of the calculated magnetic field for the partial plane (FE).
Frosell teaches
the magnet structure was divided into the individual magnets (M) (See Fig. 3A, where the array of magnets 118 is the magnet structure, and it is divided up into individual magnets 124, 126, 128 130, 132, and 134.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Meina and Rutledge wherein the magnet structure was divided into the individual magnets (M) like in Frosell in order to have smaller components that can easily be used to calculate the magnetic field instead of calculating it for an entire structure all at once. (See Frosell Para[0030] “Depend upon factors such as the polarity, size, shape, orientation and the material of each magnet, array of magnets 118 will produce a particular magnetic field.”).
Meina, Rutledge, and Frosell are silent to the language of
b) the basic magnetic field value position was calculated at least for a partial plane (FE) of the magnetic field (F) of the respective individual magnet (M), and
c) the magnetic field (F) of the individual magnet is determined on the basis of the calculated magnetic field for the partial plane (FE).
Ng teaches
b) the basic magnetic field value position was calculated at least for a partial plane (FE) of the magnetic field (F) of the respective individual magnet (M) (See Para[0018] “From equations (1) and (2) above, the distance (r) and orientation (θ) may be calculated from the magnetic field (Hr and Hθ) (i.e. the basic magnetic field value position was calculated). However, a spatial ambiguity exists in the 3D space (such as illustrated by points L1, L2, L3, L4 in FIG. 1B) as, from a top view of the magnetic field generator MG, points located on a circle concentric with the axis (i.e. a partial plane FE of the magnetic field of the respective individual magnet (M)) of the magnetic field generator MG have a common distance and angle from the magnetic field generator MG, so the magnetic field strength is the same at each point along the circle concentric with the axis of the magnetic field generator MG.”), and
c) the magnetic field (F) of the individual magnet is determined on the basis of the calculated magnetic field for the partial plane (FE) (See Para[0018] “However, a spatial ambiguity exists in the 3D space (such as illustrated by points L1, L2, L3, L4 in FIG. 1B) as, from a top view of the magnetic field generator MG, points located on a circle concentric with the axis (i.e. a partial plane FE of the magnetic field of the respective individual magnet (M)) of the magnetic field generator MG have a common distance and angle from the magnetic field generator MG, so the magnetic field strength is the same at each point along the circle concentric with the axis of the magnetic field generator MG (i.e. the magnetic field (F) of the individual magnet is determined on the basis of the calculated magnetic field for the partial plane (FE)).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Meina, Rutledge, and Frosell wherein the basic magnetic field value position was calculated at least for a partial plane (FE) of the magnetic field (F) of the respective individual magnet (M), and the magnetic field (F) of the individual magnet is determined on the basis of the calculated magnetic field for the partial plane (FE) like in Ng in order to make the calculation of the magnetic field easier and simpler.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meina and Rutledge as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Frosell (US 20160047228 A1) and Jonsson (US 20210372817 A1).
With regards to claim 5, Meina and Rutledge teach the limitations of Claim 4. Meina and Rutledge are silent to the language of
when using rotationally symmetrical individual magnets (M) of the same size, the basic magnetic field values of only one of these identical individual magnets (M) were calculated independently of the respective magnetic constant.
Frosell teaches
using rotationally symmetrical individual magnets (M) of the same size (See Fig. 3A, where the cylindrical magnets 124, 126, 128 130, 132, and 134 are all the same size, and they are rotationally symmetric around their longitudinal axes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Meina and Rutledge wherein using rotationally symmetrical individual magnets (M) of the same size is done like in Frosell in order to have a uniform set of magnets that can be used to easily determine the magnetic field from them.
Meina, Rutledge, and Frosell are silent to the language of
the basic magnetic field values of only one of these identical individual magnets (M) were calculated independently of the respective magnetic constant.
Jonsson teaches
the basic magnetic field values of only one of these individual magnets (M) were calculated independently of the respective magnetic constant (See Para[0030] “The magnet 11 provides a constant magnetic field, flowing out from the north pole of the magnet 11 (i.e. calculated independently of the respective magnetic constant, since the constant magnetic field makes it independent of the magnetic constant”. There are two individual magnets, see Abstract “One of the magnet and the magnetic sensor is provided in the barrier and the other of the magnet and the magnetic sensor is provided in the barrier frame”, and only magnet 11 is described as having a constant magnetic field.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Meina, Rutledge, and Frossel wherein the basic magnetic field values of only one of these individual magnets (M) were calculated independently of the respective magnetic constant like in Jonsson in order to make the computation easier for determining the actual position in Meina while using the identical individual magnets of the magnet array 118 in Frosell.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meina and Rutledge as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Frosell (US 20160047228 A1).
With regards to Claim 6, Meina and Rutledge teach the limitations of Claim 3. Meina further teaches
the calculation of the magnetic field (See equation 4, where the magnetic field is calculated) and
calculated by means of the dipole approximation (See Section III A Para[0004] “For this reason, we have investigated and compared different techniques: (1) dipole model”.)
Meina and Rutledge are silent to the language of
a) the magnet structure or the respective rotationally symmetrical individual magnet (M) has been divided into at least two segments,
b) the magnetic field of each segment, and
c) the calculated magnetic fields of all segments were totalled.
Frosell teaches
a) the magnet structure or the respective rotationally symmetrical individual magnet (M) (Examiner notes that an option is recited here because of “or”. Optional limitations are considered non-limiting, and the magnet structure was selected for examination.) has been divided into at least two segments (See Fig. 3A, the magnet structure is the array of magnets 118 and it has been divided into a plurality of individual magnets 124, 126, 128, 130, 132, and 134 that are the segments of the array of magnets 118),
b) the magnetic field of each segment (See Fig. 3A, the magnet structure is the array of magnets 118 and it has been divided into a plurality of individual magnets 124, 126, 128, 130, 132, and 134 that are the segments of the array of magnets 118. Each of these magnets has a magnetic field.),
c) the magnetic fields of all segments were totalled (See Abstract “a magnetic signature (i.e. the magnetic fields) produced by the moveable component and the array of magnets (i.e. of all the segments were totalled)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Meina and Rutledge wherein the magnet structure or the respective rotationally symmetrical individual magnet (M) has been divided into at least two segments, the magnetic field of each segment, and c) the magnetic fields of all segments were totalled like in Frosell in order to have an efficient method to calculate the total magnetic field from simple individual components.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meina and Rutledge as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cichon (DE 102015203686 A1).
With regards to Claim 8, Meina and Rutledge teach the limitations of Claim 1. Meina and Rutledge are silent to the language of
wherein that the determination of the actual position is carried out at least partially by a neural network.
Cichon teaches
wherein that the determination of the actual position is carried out at least partially by a neural network (See Abstract “In the method, one or more of three direction components of the magnetic flux density of the magnetic field generated by the magnetic body are repeatedly detected and evaluated locally with the magnetic field sensors to determine the respective position of the magnetic body. The magnetic field sensors are arranged in the near field of the magnetic body. The evaluation (i.e. that the determination of the actual position) is carried out at least in part with an optimal estimator based on a magnetic field model or with a neural network (i.e. carried out at least partially by a neural network).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Meina and Rutledge wherein that the determination of the actual position is carried out at least partially by a neural network like in Cichon in order to have a more automated process for determining the position in Meina.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meina and Rutledge as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Cichon (DE 102015203686 A1).
With regards to Claim 9, Meina and Rutledge teach the limitations of Claim 7. Meina and Rutledge are silent to the language of
wherein the neural network has been trained using the data set.
Cichon teaches
wherein the neural network has been trained using the data set (See Para[0045] “For the training 12 is through simulation or measurement 13 a large amount of training data {M (Bi, ri) | 1 ≤ i ≤ k} generated (i.e. trained using the data set), the magnetic field values Bi correspond to the position ri.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Meina and Rutledge wherein the neural network has been trained using the data set like in Cichon in order to incorporate the computed data into an automated method.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meina and Rutledge as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sherman (“Characterization of a Novel Magnetic Tracking System”).
With regards to Claim 10, Meina and Rutledge teach the limitations of Claim 1. Meina and Rutledge are silent to the language of
wherein that a minimisation algorithm, in particular the Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm, is used at least in part in the determination of the actual position.
Sherman teaches
wherein that a minimisation algorithm, in particular the Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm, is used at least in part in the determination of the actual position (See Abstract “The closed-form solution for the magnetic flux density of the magnetic dipole was used with a Levenberg–Marquardt optimization (i.e. wherein that a minimisation algorithm, in particular the Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm, is used) algorithm to determine the coordinates of the dipole (i.e. at least in part in the determination of the actual position)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Meina and Rutledge wherein that a minimisation algorithm, in particular the Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm, is used at least in part in the determination of the actual position like in Sherman in order to have an accurate method to determine the position of the magnetic field source in Meina.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meina and Rutledge as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Turbin (US 20110276526 A1).
With regards to Claim 12, Meina and Rutledge teach the limitations of Claim 7. Meina and Rutledge are silent to the language of
wherein a start position for the minimisation algorithm is determined by the neural network.
Turbin teaches
wherein a start position for the minimisation algorithm is determined by the neural network (See Para[0041] “training the artificial neural network structure to estimate space coordinates of an irradiation position onto the detector by feeding detector responses from known initial irradiation positions as an input into the artificial neural network structure and optimizing the artificial neural network parameters until the artificial neural network structure is able to estimate an initial position of irradiation as an output of the artificial neural network structure with a given accuracy”. The neural network is the minimization algorithm as it reduces the error in estimating the initial position.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Meina and Rutledge wherein a start position for the minimisation algorithm is determined by the neural network like in Turbin in order to have an accurate model to determine the position of the magnetic source in Meina.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meina and Rutledge as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Song (KR 102253184 B1).
With regards to Claim 13, Meina and Rutledge teach the limitations of Claim 1. Meina and Rutledge are silent to the language of
wherein the granularity of the data set is compressed by means of trilinear interpolation or bilinear interpolation.
Song teaches
wherein the granularity of the data set is compressed by means of trilinear interpolation or bilinear interpolation (See Para[0041] “From the magnetic field map, and interpolation (eg, bilinear interpolation) can be performed based on this data.”. The bilinear interpolation increases the number of data points between sampled data, making the granularity more compressed of the total data points of the data set. Examiner notes that an option is recited here because of “or”. Optional limitations are considered non-limiting.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Meina and Rutledge wherein the granularity of the data set is compressed by means of trilinear interpolation or bilinear interpolation like in Song in order to have an accurate set of data to determine the position of the magnetic source in Meina.
Claim(s) 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meina and Rutledge as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Frosell (US 20160047228 A1).
With regards to claim 15, Meina and Rutledge teach the limitations of Claim 1. Meina further teaches
a magnet structure for use in a method according to claim 1 (See Abstract “a method for spatial tracking of a strapdown device that can be used for design of human computer interfaces. Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) is used to obtain 6-dof position exploiting the so-called ZUPT technique by the means of the Kalman Filter. Additional corrections of position are done using magnetometer readings in the presence of static magnetic field induced by permanent magnet (i.e. a magnet structure for use in a method) that overshadow geomagnetic field.”).
Meina and Rutledge are silent to the language of
wherein a combination of at least a first pair of magnets is used for the magnet structure.
Frosell teaches
wherein a combination of at least a first pair of magnets is used for the magnet structure (See Fig. 3A, where the cylindrical magnets 124, 126, is the combination of a first pair of magnets for the magnet structure, which is the array of magnets 118.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Meina and Rutledge wherein a combination of at least a first pair of magnets is used for the magnet structure like in Frosell in order to have a set of magnets via having a pair of identical magnets that can be used to easily determine the magnetic field from them.
With regards to claim 16, Meina, Rutledge, and Frossel teach the limitations of Claim 15. Meina and Rutledge are silent to the language of
the magnet structure comprises a second pair of magnets.
Frosell teaches
the magnet structure comprises a second pair of magnets (See Fig. 3A, where the cylindrical magnets 128, 130, is the second pair of magnets for the magnet structure, which is the array of magnets 118.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Meina and Rutledge wherein the magnet structure comprises a second pair of magnets like in Frosell in order to have a set of magnets via having a second pair of identical magnets that can be used to easily determine the magnetic field from them.
With regards to claim 17, Meina, Rutledge, and Frossel teach the limitations of Claim 16. Meina and Rutledge are silent to the language of
the magnet structure comprises a third pair of magnets.
Frosell teaches
the magnet structure comprises a third pair of magnets (See Fig. 3A, where the cylindrical magnets 132, 134, is the third pair of magnets for the magnet structure, which is the array of magnets 118.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Meina and Rutledge wherein the magnet structure comprises a third pair of magnets like in Frosell in order to have a set of magnets via having a third pair of identical magnets that can be used to easily determine the magnetic field from them.
With regards to claim 18, Meina, Rutledge, and Frossel teach the limitations of Claim 17. Meina and Rutledge are silent to the language of
the magnets of the first and/or the second and/or the third pair have different magnetic field strengths and/or have the same size.
Frosell teaches
the magnets of the first and/or the second and/or the third pair have different magnetic field strengths and/or have the same size (See Fig. 3A, where the cylindrical magnets 124 and 126 of the first pair and the magnets 128 and 130 of the second pair have the same size. Examiner notes that options are recited here because of multiple “and/or” statements. Optional limitations are considered non-limiting. For purposes of examination, Examiner opts for the first and second pair of magnets having the same size.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Meina and Rutledge wherein the magnets of the first and/or the second and/or the third pair have different magnetic field strengths and/or have the same size like in Frosell in order to have a uniform set of magnets of the same size that can be used to easily determine the magnetic field from them.
With regards to Claim 19, Meina, Rutledge and Frossel teach the limitations of Claim 15. Meina further teaches
a use of a magnet structure according to claim 15 in a computerised method for determining the actual position of a magnet structure in a space (See Abstract “a method (i.e. a computerised method, as the method is at least partially done computationally, see Section III C Para[0006] “From the computational complexity point of view, the most expensive operation is finding a simplex, inside which the point is located”) for spatial tracking of a strapdown device that can be used for design of human computer interfaces. Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) is used to obtain 6-dof position exploiting the so-called ZUPT technique by the means of the Kalman Filter. Additional corrections of position (i.e. for determining the actual position) are done using magnetometer readings in the presence (i.e. in a space) of static magnetic field induced by permanent magnet (i.e. use of a magnet structure) that overshadow geomagnetic field.”),
wherein the actual position is a 6D pose which, with reference to the three room axes three position values x, y, z (actual position), and three orientation values Rx, Ry, Rz (actual orientation) (See Claim 1 above),
carries out the actual position determination on the basis of measurement data of a magnetic field (F) of the magnet structure, uses a data set for the actual position determination, wherein the data set has entries, by which base magnetic field value positions relative to the magnet structure in the space are assigned corresponding base magnetic field values of the magnetic field of the magnet structure (See Claim 1 above),
wherein the data set has a data structure and the base magnetic field value position is determined from the position of the respective entry within the data structure (See Claim 1 above), wherein
a) for an asymmetrical magnet structure, the data structure corresponds to a search tree with several pointers which enable navigation through the data structure, wherein the data structure consists of a collection of nodes that form a tree, whereby the nodes are either data nodes or reference nodes, whereby the reference nodes contain pointers that point to further nodes and allow the data structure to be searched, whereby the data nodes contain an entry in which the magnetic field is stored by means of a three-dimensional vector, whereby the base magnetic field value position results from the arrangement of the data node within the data structure and can be determined by means of the pointers, or (Examiner notes that an option is recited here because of “or”. Optional limitations are considered non-limiting.)
Meina is silent to the language of
an analysis module, and
b) for a symmetrical or for an asymmetrical magnet structure formed from a plurality of rotationally symmetrical magnets (M) the data structure corresponds to a simple table.
Rutledge teaches
an analysis module, and (See Fig. 8, the ARM processor 69)
b) for a symmetrical or for an asymmetrical magnet structure formed from a plurality of rotationally symmetrical magnets (M) the data structure corresponds to a simple table (See Claim 1 above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Meina wherein an analysis module is used and for a symmetrical or for an asymmetrical magnet structure formed from a plurality of rotationally symmetrical magnets (M) the data structure corresponds to a simple table like in Rutledge in order to have a more compartmentalized design to analyze the position of the magnet structure via the analysis module and to break down the permanent magnet in Meina into more manageable pieces that are symmetrical to make calculation of the magnetic field easier via the lookup table.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meina and Rutledge as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Yoshimura (US 20040069650 A1).
With regards to claim 21, Meina and Rutledge teach the limitations of Claim 20. Meina is silent to the language of
the use of a magnetic field tracking station according to claim 20, wherein the magnetic field tracking station comprises a body, wherein the body is formed as a gonioscope or a magnifying glass
Rutledge teaches
the use of a magnetic field tracking station according to claim 20 (See Fig. 8, the entire figure, which depicts the use of the magnetic field tracking station as the entire figure is used to detect magnetic fields from the four magnets 54.), wherein the magnetic field tracking station comprises a body (See Figure 8, the box enclosing the four Melexis Tri-axis Sensors 55 is the body.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Meina wherein the use of a magnetic field tracking station according to claim 20 is done, and wherein the magnetic field tracking station comprises a body like in Rutledge in order to define a physical apparatus that can apply the method of Meina in an efficient package.
Meina and Rutledge are silent to the language of
wherein the body is formed as a gonioscope or a magnifying glass.
Yoshimura teaches
wherein the body is formed as a gonioscope or a magnifying glass (See Para[0076], “On observing the outer appearance of the Ni electroplating film formed on the outermost surface of the 20 magnet test pieces with a magnifying glass (i.e. the body is formed as a magnifying glass)”. Examiner notes that an option is recited here because of “or”. Optional limitations are considered non-limiting.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Meina and Rutledge wherein the body is formed as a gonioscope or a magnifying glass like in Yoshimura in order to have a precision apparatus to detect magnetic fields.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOSTOFA AHMED HISHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-8773. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:00 a.m. - 4 p.m. ET.
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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
/MOSTOFA AHMED HISHAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights