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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Oath/Declaration
Oath/Declaration as file 09/20/2024 is noted by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
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 for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “…an application system detrending the mixed magnetometer signal and applying a wavelet-transform to the mixed magnetometer signals…” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use the term “means” or equivalent term coupled with functional language “…an application system detrending the mixed magnetometer signal and applying a wavelet-transform to the mixed magnetometer signals …” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the term “application system” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The following table shows that all three prongs of the 3-prong analysis are met and the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (See MPEP 2181(I) for details):
The 3-Prong Analysis for Claim Limitation : “…an application system detrending the mixed magnetometer signal and applying a wavelet-transform to the mixed magnetometer signals …”
Met
Prong A
Explicit recitation of “means” or equivalent term
YES
Prong B
Functional recitation of “…an application system detrending the mixed magnetometer signal and applying a wavelet-transform to the mixed magnetometer signals …”
YES
Prong C
No structure that performs the function
YES
Regarding claim 6, the limitation “…an application system detrending the mixed magnetometer signal and applying a wavelet-transform to the mixed magnetometer signals…” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use the term “means” or equivalent term coupled with functional language “…an application system detrending the mixed magnetometer signal and applying a wavelet-transform to the mixed magnetometer signals …” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the term “application system” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The following table shows that all three prongs of the 3-prong analysis are met and the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (See MPEP 2181(I) for details):
The 3-Prong Analysis for Claim Limitation : “…an application system detrending the mixed magnetometer signal and applying a wavelet-transform to the mixed magnetometer signals …”
Met
Prong A
Explicit recitation of “means” or equivalent term
YES
Prong B
Functional recitation of “…an application system detrending the mixed magnetometer signal and applying a wavelet-transform to the mixed magnetometer signals …”
YES
Prong C
No structure that performs the function
YES
Regarding claim 11, the limitation “…an application system detrending the mixed magnetometer signal and applying a wavelet-transform to the mixed magnetometer signals…” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use the term “means” or equivalent term coupled with functional language “…an application system detrending the mixed magnetometer signal and applying a wavelet-transform to the mixed magnetometer signals …” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the term “application system” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The following table shows that all three prongs of the 3-prong analysis are met and the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (See MPEP 2181(I) for details):
The 3-Prong Analysis for Claim Limitation : “…an application system detrending the mixed magnetometer signal and applying a wavelet-transform to the mixed magnetometer signals …”
Met
Prong A
Explicit recitation of “means” or equivalent term
YES
Prong B
Functional recitation of “…an application system detrending the mixed magnetometer signal and applying a wavelet-transform to the mixed magnetometer signals …”
YES
Prong C
No structure that performs the function
YES
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, Claim(s) 1, 6 and 11 has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If Applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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.
Claims 1, 6 and 11 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. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform each of the claimed functions cited above in the row of the 112(f) grid entitled “Prong B” for each of the respective placeholders.
The specification with regards to the application system; does not demonstrate that the application has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
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 1-15 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “…a magnitude and frequency of these stray magnetic field signals vary according to the spacecraft's configuration and operation mode…” in line 6 of Claim 1. It is not clear if the underlined limitation refers to the same “multiple stray magnetic field signals” disclosed earlier in Claim 1 or if it refers to different “stray magnetic field signals”. If this is the case, please change the limitation in question to “multiple stray magnetic field signals”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “…an application system detrending the mixed magnetometer signal and applying a wavelet-transform to the mixed magnetometer signals…”;. The term “application system” renders the claim indefinite as the claim does not define sufficient structure; the original specification does not provide clarification as to what structure performs the particular functions of detrending the mixed magnetometer signal and applying a wavelet-transform to the mixed magnetometer signals, and one of ordinary skill in the art could interpret so many structures that can perform the particular function. Thus, for these reasons, the phrase “application system” renders claim 1 indefinite.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “…applying a wavelet-transform to the mixed magnetometer signals, the difference between the magnetometer signals is calculated and a correlation is taken…” in line 11 of Claim 1. It is not clear if the underlined limitation refers to the same “mixed magnetometer signals” disclosed earlier in Claim 1 or if it refers to different “magnetometer signals”. If this is the case, please change the limitation in question to “mixed magnetometer signals”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “…and a correlation is taken with the difference in the magnetometer signal and that correlation gives …” in line 12 of Claim 1. It is not clear if the underlined limitation refers to the same “mixed magnetometer signal” disclosed earlier in Claim 1 or if it refers to a different “magnetometer signal”. If this is the case, please change the limitation in question to “mixed magnetometer signal”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation " …and that correlation gives the interference signal, the interference signal is subtracted from…" in lines 12-13 of Claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no prior disclosure of the limitation “interference signal” before this.
Claim 1 recites the limitation " … the interference signal is subtracted from the original signals and a filtered resultant signal is output …" in line 13 of Claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no prior disclosure of the limitation “original signals” before this. It is not clear if the term “original signals” refers to any combination of the “magnetically clean signal”, “multiple stray magnetic field signals” and “mixed magnetometer signal” disclosed earlier in Claim 1 or if it refers to different “original signals”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation " …and a filtered resultant signal is output to be used in the navigation system ." in line 14 of Claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no prior disclosure of the limitation “navigation system” before this.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “a magnitude and frequency of these stray magnetic field signals vary according to the spacecraft's configuration and operation mode” in line 6 of Claim 6. It is not clear if the underlined limitation refers to the same “multiple stray magnetic field signals” disclosed earlier in Claim 6 or if it refers to different “stray magnetic field signals”. If this is the case, please change the limitation in question to “multiple stray magnetic field signals”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “…an application system detrending the mixed magnetometer signal and applying a wavelet-transform to the mixed magnetometer signals…”;. The term “application system” renders the claim indefinite as the claim does not define sufficient structure; the original specification does not provide clarification as to what structure performs the particular functions of detrending the mixed magnetometer signal and applying a wavelet-transform to the mixed magnetometer signals, and one of ordinary skill in the art could interpret so many structures that can perform the particular function. Thus, for these reasons, the phrase “application system” renders claim 6 indefinite.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “…applying a wavelet-transform to the mixed magnetometer signals, the difference between the magnetometer signals is calculated and a correlation is taken…” in line 11 of Claim 6. It is not clear if the underlined limitation refers to the same “mixed magnetometer signals” disclosed earlier in Claim 6 or if it refers to different “magnetometer signals”. If this is the case, please change the limitation in question to “mixed magnetometer signals”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “…and a correlation is taken with the difference in the magnetometer signal and that correlation gives …” in line 12 of Claim 6. It is not clear if the underlined limitation refers to the same “mixed magnetometer signal” disclosed earlier in Claim 6 or if it refers to a different “magnetometer signal”. If this is the case, please change the limitation in question to “mixed magnetometer signal”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation " …and that correlation gives the interference signal, the interference signal is subtracted from…" in lines 12-13 of Claim 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no prior disclosure of the limitation “interference signal” before this.
Claim 6 recites the limitation " … the interference signal is subtracted from the original signals and a filtered resultant signal is output …" in line 13 of Claim 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no prior disclosure of the limitation “original signals” before this. It is not clear if the term “original signals” refers to any combination of the “magnetically clean signal”, “multiple stray magnetic field signals” and “mixed magnetometer signal” disclosed earlier in Claim 6 or if it refers to different “original signals”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation " …and a filtered resultant signal is output to be used in the navigation system ." in line 14 of Claim 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no prior disclosure of the limitation “navigation system” before this.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “a magnitude and frequency of these stray magnetic field signals vary according to the spacecraft's configuration and operation mode” in line 6 of Claim 11. It is not clear if the underlined limitation refers to the same “multiple stray magnetic field signals” disclosed earlier in Claim 11 or if it refers to different “stray magnetic field signals”. If this is the case, please change the limitation in question to “multiple stray magnetic field signals”.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “…an application system detrending the mixed magnetometer signal and applying a wavelet-transform to the mixed magnetometer signals…”;. The term “application system” renders the claim indefinite as the claim does not define sufficient structure; the original specification does not provide clarification as to what structure performs the particular functions of detrending the mixed magnetometer signal and applying a wavelet-transform to the mixed magnetometer signals, and one of ordinary skill in the art could interpret so many structures that can perform the particular function. Thus, for these reasons, the phrase “application system” renders claim 11 indefinite.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “…applying a wavelet-transform to the mixed magnetometer signals, the difference between the magnetometer signals is calculated and a correlation is taken…” in line 11 of Claim 11. It is not clear if the underlined limitation refers to the same “mixed magnetometer signals” disclosed earlier in Claim 11 or if it refers to different “magnetometer signals”. If this is the case, please change the limitation in question to “mixed magnetometer signals”.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “…and a correlation is taken with the difference in the magnetometer signal and that correlation gives …” in line 12 of Claim 11. It is not clear if the underlined limitation refers to the same “mixed magnetometer signal” disclosed earlier in Claim 11 or if it refers to a different “magnetometer signal”. If this is the case, please change the limitation in question to “mixed magnetometer signal”.
Claim 11 recites the limitation " …and that correlation gives the interference signal, the interference signal is subtracted from…" in lines 12-13 of Claim 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no prior disclosure of the limitation “interference signal” before this.
Claim 11 recites the limitation " … the interference signal is subtracted from the original signals and a filtered resultant signal is output …" in line 13 of Claim 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no prior disclosure of the limitation “original signals” before this. It is not clear if the term “original signals” refers to any combination of the “magnetically clean signal”, “multiple stray magnetic field signals” and “mixed magnetometer signal” disclosed earlier in Claim 11 or if it refers to different “original signals”.
Claim 11 recites the limitation " …and a filtered resultant signal is output to be used in the navigation system ." in line 14 of Claim 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no prior disclosure of the limitation “navigation system” before this.
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph as they are dependent on Claim 1.
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph as they are dependent on Claim 6.
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph as they are dependent on Claim 11.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 6 and 11 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 1, the prior art does not teach or suggest, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 1,
“…an application system detrending the mixed magnetometer signal and applying a wavelet-transform to the mixed magnetometer signals, the difference between the magnetometer signals is calculated and a correlation is taken with the difference in the magnetometer signal and that correlation gives the interference signal, the interference signal is subtracted from the original signals and a filtered resultant signal is output to be used in the navigation system.”
Claims 2-5 are also allowed as they further limit allowed claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art does not teach or suggest, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 6,
“…an application system detrending the mixed magnetometer signal and applying a wavelet-transform to the mixed magnetometer signals, the difference between the magnetometer signals is calculated and a correlation is taken with the difference in the magnetometer signal and that correlation gives the interference signal, the interference signal is subtracted from the original signals and a filtered resultant signal is output to be used in the navigation system.”
Claims 7-10 are also allowed as they further limit allowed claim 6.
Regarding claim 11, the prior art does not teach or suggest, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 11,
“…an application system detrending the mixed magnetometer signal and applying a wavelet-transform to the mixed magnetometer signals, the difference between the magnetometer signals is calculated and a correlation is taken with the difference in the magnetometer signal and that correlation gives the interference signal, the interference signal is subtracted from the original signals and a filtered resultant signal is output to be used in the navigation system.”
Claims 12-15 are also allowed as they further limit allowed claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Li et al. US 2016/0041234 - A reduced-cost apparatus for calibrating the sensitivity and orthogonality of a triaxial magnetometer, and a method for adjusting the distance between the two coils of a Helmholtz coil and other related parameters are described herein.
Li et al. US 2018/0231619 - A reduced-cost apparatus for calibrating the sensitivity and orthogonality of a triaxial magnetometer, and a method for adjusting the distance between the two coils of a Helmholtz coil and other related parameters are described herein.
Alford et al. US 2021/0080522 - A magnetic field measurement system that includes at least one magnetometer; at least one magnetic field generator; a processor coupled to the at least one magnetometer and the at least one magnetic field generator and configured to: measure an ambient background magnetic field using at least one of the at least one magnetometer in a first mode selected from a scalar mode or a vector mode.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAUL J RIOS RUSSO whose telephone number is (571)270-3459. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 10am-6pm, EST.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at 571-272-7924. 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.
/RAUL J RIOS RUSSO/Examiner, Art Unit 2858