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 .
Status of Claims
This communication is in response to application No. 18/795,420, filed on 08/06/2024. Claims 1-37 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 1-37 have been rejected as follows.
Priority
Applicant' s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 09/09/2025 has been acknowledged.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the length is more than 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Interpretation
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”) 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.
Claim limitation(s) that are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
In claim 37,
means for accessing a first portion of a magnetic recording
means for accessing a second portion of the magnetic recording
means for comparing the first portion of the magnetic recording with the second portion of the magnetic recording;
means for, based on the comparison, determining that the series of magnetic values in the first portion of the magnetic recording is substantially repeated in reverse order in the second portion of the magnetic recording
means for, based on the determination that the second portion of the magnetic recording substantially repeats the first portion of the magnetic recording in reverse order, determining that the device moved in an opposite direction during the second portion of the trajectory relative to movement of the device during the first portion of the trajectory
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.
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.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, the claims have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
Par. 95 and Fig. 20, “Magnetic-sensor system 2002 may include one or more magnetic sensors (such as, for example, magnetometers) and other hardware, software, or both for controlling and collecting measurements from the magnetic sensors.”
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 4, 16, and 28 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.
Claims 4, 16, and 28 recites the limitation "the magnetic remeasurements". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what "the magnetic remeasurements" is referring to, as nowhere in any of the claims do the magnetic measurements get remeasured.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Analysis of the claim(s) regarding subject matter eligibility is described below.
STEP 1: STATUTORY CATEGORIES
Claims 1-37 do fall into at least one of the four statutory subject matter categories.
STEP 2A: JUDICIAL EXCEPTIONS
PRONG 1: RECITATION OF A JUDICIAL EXCEPTION
The independent claim 1 recites:
by an electronic device,
accessing a first portion of a magnetic recording, wherein: the magnetic recording corresponds to a trajectory of a device; the magnetic recording comprises a series of magnetic values that represents a set of magnetic measurements along the trajectory; and the first portion corresponds to a first portion of the trajectory;
by the electronic device, accessing a second portion of the magnetic recording, wherein the second portion corresponds to a second portion of the trajectory;
by the electronic device, comparing the first portion of the magnetic recording with the second portion of the magnetic recording; (mental processes)
by the electronic device, determining, based on the comparison, that the series of magnetic values in the first portion of the magnetic recording is substantially repeated in reverse order in the second portion of the magnetic recording; (mental processes)
and by the electronic device, based on the determination that the second portion of the magnetic recording substantially repeats the first portion of the magnetic recording in reverse order, determining that the device moved in an opposite direction during the second portion of the trajectory relative to movement of the device during the first portion of the trajectory. (mental processes)
Claim 1 recites an abstract idea belonging to the grouping of mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). A person could compare two magnetic recordings, determine if they are inverses of each other, and determine that the device moved in the opposite direction.
PRONG 2: INTEGRATION INTO A PRACTICAL APPLICATION
The additional element(s) recited in the claim(s) beyond the judicial exception are “an electronic device”, “accessing a first portion of a magnetic recording, wherein: the magnetic recording corresponds to a trajectory of a device; the magnetic recording comprises a series of magnetic values that represents a set of magnetic measurements along the trajectory; and the first portion corresponds to a first portion of the trajectory”, and “accessing a second portion of the magnetic recording, wherein the second portion corresponds to a second portion of the trajectory”. The additional element(s) do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the additional element(s) do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The limitations the courts have identified that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application include:
• Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);
• Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d);
• Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
• Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
The element(s) “accessing a first portion of a magnetic recording, wherein: the magnetic recording corresponds to a trajectory of a device; the magnetic recording comprises a series of magnetic values that represents a set of magnetic measurements along the trajectory; and the first portion corresponds to a first portion of the trajectory” and “accessing a second portion of the magnetic recording, wherein the second portion corresponds to a second portion of the trajectory” merely add(s) the extra-solution activity of data gathering, which the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The element(s) “an electronic device” is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. These additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea without a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
STEP 2B: INVENTIVE CONCEPT/SIGNIFICANTLY MORE
The additional elements recited in the claim(s) are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and amount to simply adding the equivalent of the words “apply it” with the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)), as stated above. Further, the additional elements recited in the claim(s) are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality (MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Dependent claims 2-12 further define the abstract idea that is present in their independent claim 1 and thus correspond to mental processes and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 2-12 are not patent-eligible.
Independent claims 13, 25, and 37 are rejected for the same reasons as independent claim 1. Dependent claims 14-24 and 26-36 are rejected for the same reasons as dependent claims 2-12.
Based on the above analysis, claims 1-37 are not eligible subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-5, 9-17, 21-29, and 33-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly (US 20130205306 A1) in view of Frish (US 20180245927 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kelly teaches a method comprising:
by an electronic device (par. 46 and Fig. 3, computing device 400 or 1100), accessing a first portion of a magnetic recording (Fig. 2, sensed data), wherein:
the magnetic recording corresponds to a trajectory of a device (par. 25, “one event signature may include determining if the user is walking, another event signature may include determining if the user is driving, or the like”);
the magnetic recording comprises a series of magnetic values that represents a set of magnetic measurements along the trajectory (Fig. 2, sensed data; par. 20, “systems 100 may include one or more sensors 110 that can sense a change of the portable device relative to the physical surroundings. As examples, sensors 110 may include accelerometers, gyroscopes, magnetometers, pressure sensors, GPS sensors, WiFi sensors, near field communications devices, and the like”);
and the first portion corresponds to a first portion of the trajectory (Fig. 2, first half of sensed data);
by the electronic device, accessing a second portion of the magnetic recording, wherein the second portion corresponds to a second portion of the trajectory (Fig. 2, second half of sensed data);
by the electronic device, comparing the first portion of the magnetic recording with the second portion of the magnetic recording (par. 12, “detect a match between the time series of sensor data to a motion event signature”—detecting patterns in the recording, which includes the first and second portion);
Kelly fails to teach by the electronic device, determining, based on the comparison, that the series of magnetic values in the first portion of the magnetic recording is substantially repeated in reverse order in the second portion of the magnetic recording; and by the electronic device, based on the determination that the second portion of the magnetic recording substantially repeats the first portion of the magnetic recording in reverse order, determining that the device moved in an opposite direction during the second portion of the trajectory relative to movement of the device during the first portion of the trajectory.
However, Frish teaches by the electronic device, determining, based on the comparison, that the series of magnetic values in the first portion of the magnetic recording is substantially repeated in reverse order in the second portion of the magnetic recording (par. 119, “The inverse path can be generated, for example, by reversing the time order of sensor measurements for a given path length, or window of time over a length of a path estimate”);
and by the electronic device, based on the determination that the second portion of the magnetic recording substantially repeats the first portion of the magnetic recording in reverse order, determining that the device moved in an opposite direction during the second portion of the trajectory relative to movement of the device during the first portion of the trajectory (par. 119, “The inverse path can be generated, for example, by reversing the time order of sensor measurements for a given path length, or window of time over a length of a path estimate”).
Although Frish does not explicitly teach the series of magnetic values in the first portion of the magnetic recording is substantially repeated in reverse order in the second portion of the magnetic recording to determine the device moved in an opposite direction, Frish teaches that such a pattern is known to represent movement in an opposite direction. In combination with Kelly, this pattern of inversed time order of sensor measurements could be one of the motion event signatures Kelly uses. Kelly discloses, “These signatures are considered to be any repeatable pattern in a stream of data from one or more sensors that signify a defined event. In various embodiments, typical motion event signatures are defined through learning/calibration tests and analyses from data from a population of users, or from a specific user. For example, a specific user may be instructed to perform a specific event a number of times, and based upon the sensed data, the motion event signature for that user may be created” (Kelly, par. 11). Frish teaches what such a pattern would look like, and matching the pattern to a motion event signature would obviously involve checking for measurements in which there is an inversion of a first part.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kelly to incorporate the teachings of Frish to add the pattern of opposite movement as one of the motion even signatures. Kelly lists many possible motion event signatures, such as walking (par. 34 and Fig. 2, walk even signature line 260), “the user tapping on the device, shaking the device, turning the device, running with the device, waving the device, making application-specific gestures with the device” (par. 36), turning a corner (par. 41). One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to recognize moving in an opposite direction as another plausible motion event signature.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Kelly in view of Frish teaches the method of Claim 1. Kelly further teaches the first portion of the magnetic recording and the first portion of the trajectory correspond to a first period of time (Fig. 2, first half of sensed data); the second portion of the magnetic recording and the second portion of the trajectory correspond to a second period of time (Fig. 2, second half of sensed data); and the second period of time is later than the first period of time (Fig. 2, x-axis is time).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Kelly in view of Frish teaches the method of Claim 1. Kelly further teaches the series is a time series or a distance series (abstract, time series; Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Kelly in view of Frish teaches the method of Claim 3. Kelly further teaches the magnetic remeasurements comprise one or more of a total value of a magnetic field, an inclination angle of the magnetic field, a declination angle of the magnetic field, an x component of the magnetic field, a y component of the magnetic field, or a z component of the magnetic field or a magnetic-susceptibility or magnetic-conductivity value (par. 7, “Other perturbations may include accelerations and alignment with respect to gravity, as determined by accelerometers; rotations in space, as determined by gyroscopes; changes in altitude, as determined by a pressure sensor; changes in location or orientation with respect to a magnetic field (e.g. Earth's magnetic field), as determined by a magnetometer; or the like”).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Kelly in view of Frish teaches the method of Claim 1. Kelly teaches the comparison comprises: (par. 11, “the time series of sensor data are then compared to one or more "motion event signatures”; par. 30, “The processed data is then compared to the optimized signature data 150 within a correlation step 170. Additionally, if the correlation is above a certain threshold, decision block 180 signals occurrence of the event”).
Kelly fails to teach reversing the second portion of the magnetic recording; approximately aligning the first and reversed second portions of the magnetic recording with each other.
However, Frish teaches reversing the second portion of the magnetic recording; approximately aligning the first and reversed second portions of the magnetic recording with each other (par. 119, “The inverse path can be generated, for example, by reversing the time order of sensor measurements for a given path length, or window of time over a length of a path estimate”).
While Frish does not explicitly teach reversing the second portion of the magnetic recording; approximately aligning the first and reversed second portions of the magnetic recording with each other, this would be an obvious choice given the knowledge of the movement pattern being an inversion of itself.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Kelly in view of Frish to further incorporate the teachings of Frish to add the pattern of opposite movement as one of the motion even signatures. Kelly lists many possible motion event signatures, such as walking (par. 34 and Fig. 2, walk even signature line 260), “the user tapping on the device, shaking the device, turning the device, running with the device, waving the device, making application-specific gestures with the device” (par. 36), turning a corner (par. 41). One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to recognize moving in an opposite direction as another plausible motion event signature.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Kelly in view of Frish teaches the method of Claim 1. Kelly further teaches the device was moved along the trajectory by a user (par. 25, “one event signature may include determining if the user is walking).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Kelly in view of Frish teaches the method of Claim 9. Kelly further teaches the user is a person (par. 25, “one event signature may include determining if the user is walking) and the device is a smartphone (par. 19, “system 100 may be a portable device such as a phone”).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Kelly in view of Frish teaches the method of Claim 1. Kelly further teaches the device is the electronic device (par. 19, “system 100 may be a portable device such as a phone”).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Kelly in view of Frish teaches the method of Claim 1. Kelly further teaches the device is a smartphone or a vehicle (par. 19, “system 100 may be a portable device such as a phone (e.g. iPhone, GalaxyS3), a tablet computer (e.g. iPad, Kindle), or the like. In other embodiments, the portable device may include any mobile computing device, e.g. a GPS device, a fleet management system, a radio, a watch, or the like”).
Regarding claim 13, Kelly teaches one or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media (par. 46 and Fig. 3, memory 420 or 1120) embodying software that is operable when executed to:
access a first portion of a magnetic recording (Fig. 2, sensed data), wherein:
the magnetic recording corresponds to a trajectory of a device (par. 25, “one event signature may include determining if the user is walking, another event signature may include determining if the user is driving, or the like”);
the magnetic recording comprises a series of magnetic values that represents a set of magnetic measurements along the trajectory (Fig. 2, sensed data; par. 20, “systems 100 may include one or more sensors 110 that can sense a change of the portable device relative to the physical surroundings. As examples, sensors 110 may include accelerometers, gyroscopes, magnetometers, pressure sensors, GPS sensors, WiFi sensors, near field communications devices, and the like”);
and the first portion corresponds to a first portion of the trajectory (Fig. 2, first half of sensed data);
access a second portion of the magnetic recording, wherein the second portion corresponds to a second portion of the trajectory (Fig. 2, second half of sensed data);
compare the first portion of the magnetic recording with the second portion of the magnetic recording (par. 12, “detect a match between the time series of sensor data to a motion event signature”—detecting patterns in the recording, which includes the first and second portion);
Kelly fails to teach based on the comparison, determine that the series of magnetic values in the first portion of the magnetic recording is substantially repeated in reverse order in the second portion of the magnetic recording; and based on the determination that the second portion of the magnetic recording substantially repeats the first portion of the magnetic recording in reverse order, determine that the device moved in an opposite direction during the second portion of the trajectory relative to movement of the device during the first portion of the trajectory
However, Frish teaches based on the comparison, determine that the series of magnetic values in the first portion of the magnetic recording is substantially repeated in reverse order in the second portion of the magnetic recording (par. 119, “The inverse path can be generated, for example, by reversing the time order of sensor measurements for a given path length, or window of time over a length of a path estimate”);
and based on the determination that the second portion of the magnetic recording substantially repeats the first portion of the magnetic recording in reverse order, determine that the device moved in an opposite direction during the second portion of the trajectory relative to movement of the device during the first portion of the trajectory (par. 119, “The inverse path can be generated, for example, by reversing the time order of sensor measurements for a given path length, or window of time over a length of a path estimate”).
Although Frish does not explicitly teach the series of magnetic values in the first portion of the magnetic recording is substantially repeated in reverse order in the second portion of the magnetic recording to determine the device moved in an opposite direction, Frish teaches that such a pattern is known to represent movement in an opposite direction. In combination with Kelly, this pattern of inversed time order of sensor measurements could be one of the motion event signatures Kelly uses. Kelly discloses, “These signatures are considered to be any repeatable pattern in a stream of data from one or more sensors that signify a defined event. In various embodiments, typical motion event signatures are defined through learning/calibration tests and analyses from data from a population of users, or from a specific user. For example, a specific user may be instructed to perform a specific event a number of times, and based upon the sensed data, the motion event signature for that user may be created” (Kelly, par. 11). Frish teaches what such a pattern would look like, and matching the pattern to a motion event signature would obviously involve checking for measurements in which there is an inversion of a first part.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kelly to incorporate the teachings of Frish to add the pattern of opposite movement as one of the motion even signatures. Kelly lists many possible motion event signatures, such as walking (par. 34 and Fig. 2, walk even signature line 260), “the user tapping on the device, shaking the device, turning the device, running with the device, waving the device, making application-specific gestures with the device” (par. 36), turning a corner (par. 41). One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to recognize moving in an opposite direction as another plausible motion event signature.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Kelly in view of Frish teaches the media of Claim 13. Kelly further teaches the first portion of the magnetic recording and the first portion of the trajectory correspond to a first period of time (Fig. 2, first half of sensed data); the second portion of the magnetic recording and the second portion of the trajectory correspond to a second period of time (Fig. 2, second half of sensed data); and the second period of time is later than the first period of time (Fig. 2, x-axis is time).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Kelly in view of Frish teaches the media of Claim 13. Kelly further teaches the series is a time series or a distance series (abstract, time series; Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Kelly in view of Frish teaches the media of Claim 15. Kelly further teaches the magnetic remeasurements comprise one or more of a total value of a magnetic field, an inclination angle of the magnetic field, a declination angle of the magnetic field, an x component of the magnetic field, a y component of the magnetic field, or a z component of the magnetic field or a magnetic-susceptibility or magnetic-conductivity value (par. 7, “Other perturbations may include accelerations and alignment with respect to gravity, as determined by accelerometers; rotations in space, as determined by gyroscopes; changes in altitude, as determined by a pressure sensor; changes in location or orientation with respect to a magnetic field (e.g. Earth's magnetic field), as determined by a magnetometer; or the like”).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Kelly in view of Frish teaches the media of Claim 13. Kelly further teaches the comparison comprises: (par. 11, “the time series of sensor data are then compared to one or more "motion event signatures”; par. 30, “The processed data is then compared to the optimized signature data 150 within a correlation step 170. Additionally, if the correlation is above a certain threshold, decision block 180 signals occurrence of the event”).
Kelly fails to teach reversing the second portion of the magnetic recording; approximately aligning the first and reversed second portions of the magnetic recording with each other.
However, Frish teaches reversing the second portion of the magnetic recording; approximately aligning the first and reversed second portions of the magnetic recording with each other (par. 119, “The inverse path can be generated, for example, by reversing the time order of sensor measurements for a given path length, or window of time over a length of a path estimate”).
While Frish does not explicitly teach reversing the second portion of the magnetic recording; approximately aligning the first and reversed second portions of the magnetic recording with each other, this would be an obvious choice given the knowledge of the movement pattern being an inversion of itself.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Kelly in view of Frish to further incorporate the teachings of Frish to add the pattern of opposite movement as one of the motion even signatures. Kelly lists many possible motion event signatures, such as walking (par. 34 and Fig. 2, walk even signature line 260), “the user tapping on the device, shaking the device, turning the device, running with the device, waving the device, making application-specific gestures with the device” (par. 36), turning a corner (par. 41). One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to recognize moving in an opposite direction as another plausible motion event signature.
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Kelly in view of Frish teaches the media of Claim 13. Kelly further teaches the device was moved along the trajectory by a user (par. 25, “one event signature may include determining if the user is walking).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Kelly in view of Frish teaches the media of Claim 21. Kelly further teaches the user is a person (par. 25, “one event signature may include determining if the user is walking) and the device is a smartphone (par. 19, “system 100 may be a portable device such as a phone”).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Kelly in view of Frish teaches the media of Claim 13. Kelly further teaches the device is the electronic device (par. 19, “system 100 may be a portable device such as a phone”).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Kelly in view of Frish teaches the media of Claim 13. Kelly further teaches the device is a smartphone or a vehicle (par. 19, “system 100 may be a portable device such as a phone (e.g. iPhone, GalaxyS3), a tablet computer (e.g. iPad, Kindle), or the like. In other embodiments, the portable device may include any mobile computing device, e.g. a GPS device, a fleet management system, a radio, a watch, or the like”).
Regarding claim 25, Kelly teaches a system comprising:
one or more processors (par. 48 and Fig. 2, processor 410 or 1110);
and one or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media (par. 46 and Fig. 3, memory 420 or 1120) coupled to one or more of the processors and comprising instructions operable when executed by one or more of the processors to cause the system to:
access a first portion of a magnetic recording (Fig. 2, sensed data), wherein:
the magnetic recording corresponds to a trajectory of a device (par. 25, “one event signature may include determining if the user is walking, another event signature may include determining if the user is driving, or the like”);
the magnetic recording comprises a series of magnetic values that represents a set of magnetic measurements along the trajectory (Fig. 2, sensed data; par. 20, “systems 100 may include one or more sensors 110 that can sense a change of the portable device relative to the physical surroundings. As examples, sensors 110 may include accelerometers, gyroscopes, magnetometers, pressure sensors, GPS sensors, WiFi sensors, near field communications devices, and the like”);
and the first portion corresponds to a first portion of the trajectory (Fig. 2, first half of sensed data);
access a second portion of the magnetic recording, wherein the second portion corresponds to a second portion of the trajectory (Fig. 2, second half of sensed data);
compare the first portion of the magnetic recording with the second portion of the magnetic recording (par. 12, “detect a match between the time series of sensor data to a motion event signature”—detecting patterns in the recording, which includes the first and second portion);
Kelly fails to teach based on the comparison, determine that the series of magnetic values in the first portion of the magnetic recording is substantially repeated in reverse order in the second portion of the magnetic recording; and based on the determination that the second portion of the magnetic recording substantially repeats the first portion of the magnetic recording in reverse order, determine that the device moved in an opposite direction during the second portion of the trajectory relative to movement of the device during the first portion of the trajectory.
However, Frish teaches based on the comparison, determine that the series of magnetic values in the first portion of the magnetic recording is substantially repeated in reverse order in the second portion of the magnetic recording (par. 119, “The inverse path can be generated, for example, by reversing the time order of sensor measurements for a given path length, or window of time over a length of a path estimate”);
and based on the determination that the second portion of the magnetic recording substantially repeats the first portion of the magnetic recording in reverse order, determine that the device moved in an opposite direction during the second portion of the trajectory relative to movement of the device during the first portion of the trajectory (par. 119, “The inverse path can be generated, for example, by reversing the time order of sensor measurements for a given path length, or window of time over a length of a path estimate”).
Although Frish does not explicitly teach the series of magnetic values in the first portion of the magnetic recording is substantially repeated in reverse order in the second portion of the magnetic recording to determine the device moved in an opposite direction, Frish teaches that such a pattern is known to represent movement in an opposite direction. In combination with Kelly, this pattern of inversed time order of sensor measurements could be one of the motion event signatures Kelly uses. Kelly discloses, “These signatures are considered to be any repeatable pattern in a stream of data from one or more sensors that signify a defined event. In various embodiments, typical motion event signatures are defined through learning/calibration tests and analyses from data from a population of users, or from a specific user. For example, a specific user may be instructed to perform a specific event a number of times, and based upon the sensed data, the motion event signature for that user may be created” (Kelly, par. 11). Frish teaches what such a pattern would look like, and matching the pattern to a motion event signature would obviously involve checking for measurements in which there is an inversion of a first part.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kelly to incorporate the teachings of Frish to add the pattern of opposite movement as one of the motion even signatures. Kelly lists many possible motion event signatures, such as walking (par. 34 and Fig. 2, walk even signature line 260), “the user tapping on the device, shaking the device, turning the device, running with the device, waving the device, making application-specific gestures with the device” (par. 36), turning a corner (par. 41). One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to recognize moving in an opposite direction as another plausible motion event signature.
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Kelly in view of Frish teaches the system of Claim 25. Kelly further teaches the first portion of the magnetic recording and the first portion of the trajectory correspond to a first period of time (Fig. 2, first half of sensed data); the second portion of the magnetic recording and the second portion of the trajectory correspond to a second period of time (Fig. 2, second half of sensed data); and the second period of time is later than the first period of time (Fig. 2, x-axis is time).
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Kelly in view of Frish teaches the system of Claim 25. Kelly further teaches the series is a time series or a distance series (abstract, time series; Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Kelly in view of Frish teaches the system of Claim 27. Kelly further teaches the magnetic remeasurements comprise one or more of a total value of a magnetic field, an inclination angle of the magnetic field, a declination angle of the magnetic field, an x component of the magnetic field, a y component of the magnetic field, or a z component of the magnetic field or a magnetic-susceptibility or magnetic-conductivity value (par. 7, “Other perturbations may include accelerations and alignment with respect to gravity, as determined by accelerometers; rotations in space, as determined by gyroscopes; changes in altitude, as determined by a pressure sensor; changes in location or orientation with respect to a magnetic field (e.g. Earth's magnetic field), as determined by a magnetometer; or the like”).
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Kelly in view of Frish teaches the system of Claim 25. Kelly further teaches the comparison comprises: portions of the magnetic recording based on the difference (par. 11, “the time series of sensor data are then compared to one or more "motion event signatures”; par. 30, “The processed data is then compared to the optimized signature data 150 within a correlation step 170. Additionally, if the correlation is above a certain threshold, decision block 180 signals occurrence of the event”).
Kelly fails to teach reversing the second portion of the magnetic recording; approximately aligning the first and reversed second portions of the magnetic recording with each other.
However, Frish teaches reversing the second portion of the magnetic recording; approximately aligning the first and reversed second portions of the magnetic recording with each other (par. 119, “The inverse path can be generated, for example, by reversing the time order of sensor measurements for a given path length, or window of time over a length of a path estimate”).
While Frish does not explicitly teach reversing the second portion of the magnetic recording; approximately aligning the first and reversed second portions of the magnetic recording with each other, this would be an obvious choice given the knowledge of the movement pattern being an inversion of itself.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Kelly in view of Frish to further incorporate the teachings of Frish to add the pattern of opposite movement as one of the motion even signatures. Kelly lists many possible motion event signatures, such as walking (par. 34 and Fig. 2, walk even signature line 260), “the user tapping on the device, shaking the device, turning the device, running with the device, waving the device, making application-specific gestures with the device” (par. 36), turning a corner (par. 41). One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to recognize moving in an opposite direction as another plausible motion event signature.
Regarding claim 33, the combination of Kelly in view of Frish teaches the system of Claim 25. Kelly further teaches the device was moved along the trajectory by a user (par. 25, “one event signature may include determining if the user is walking).
Regarding claim 34, the combination of Kelly in view of Frish teaches the system of Claim 33. Kelly further teaches the user is a person (par. 25, “one event signature may include determining if the user is walking) and the device is a smartphone (par. 19, “system 100 may be a portable device such as a phone”).
Regarding claim 35, the combination of Kelly in view of Frish teaches the system of Claim 25. Kelly further teaches the device is the electronic device (par. 19, “system 100 may be a portable device such as a phone”).
Regarding claim 36, the combination of Kelly in view of Frish teaches the system of Claim 25. Kelly further teaches the device is a smartphone or a vehicle (par. 19, “system 100 may be a portable device such as a phone (e.g. iPhone, GalaxyS3), a tablet computer (e.g. iPad, Kindle), or the like. In other embodiments, the portable device may include any mobile computing device, e.g. a GPS device, a fleet management system, a radio, a watch, or the like”).
Regarding claim 37, Kelly teaches a system comprising:
means (par. 46 and Fig. 3, computing device 400 or 1100) for accessing a first portion of a magnetic recording (Fig. 2, sensed data), wherein:
the magnetic recording corresponds to a trajectory of a device (par. 25, “one event signature may include determining if the user is walking, another event signature may include determining if the user is driving, or the like”);
the magnetic recording comprises a series of magnetic values that represents a set of magnetic measurements along the trajectory (Fig. 2, sensed data; par. 20, “systems 100 may include one or more sensors 110 that can sense a change of the portable device relative to the physical surroundings. As examples, sensors 110 may include accelerometers, gyroscopes, magnetometers, pressure sensors, GPS sensors, WiFi sensors, near field communications devices, and the like”);
and the first portion corresponds to a first portion of the trajectory (Fig. 2, first half of sensed data);
means for accessing a second portion of the magnetic recording, wherein the second portion corresponds to a second portion of the trajectory (Fig. 2, second half of sensed data);
means for comparing the first portion of the magnetic recording with the second portion of the magnetic recording (par. 12, “detect a match between the time series of sensor data to a motion event signature”—detecting patterns in the recording, which includes the first and second portion);
Kelly fails to teach means for, based on the comparison, determining that the series of magnetic values in the first portion of the magnetic recording is substantially repeated in reverse order in the second portion of the magnetic recording; and means for, based on the determination that the second portion of the magnetic recording substantially repeats the first portion of the magnetic recording in reverse order, determining that the device moved in an opposite direction during the second portion of the trajectory relative to movement of the device during the first portion of the trajectory.
However, Frish teaches means for, based on the comparison, determining that the series of magnetic values in the first portion of the magnetic recording is substantially repeated in reverse order in the second portion of the magnetic recording (par. 119, “The inverse path can be generated, for example, by reversing the time order of sensor measurements for a given path length, or window of time over a length of a path estimate”);
and means for, based on the determination that the second portion of the magnetic recording substantially repeats the first portion of the magnetic recording in reverse order, determining that the device moved in an opposite direction during the second portion of the trajectory relative to movement of the device during the first portion of the trajectory (par. 119, “The inverse path can be generated, for example, by reversing the time order of sensor measurements for a given path length, or window of t