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 .
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim to priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(e) of U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 63/531,316, filed 2023-08-08. This application has been afforded this earlier filing date.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 2025-09-09 and 2026-05-15 have been considered by the examiner and made of record in the application file.
Claim Objections
Claims 8, 18, and 28 are objected to because of the following informalities: in line 5 of claims 8, 18, and 28, it appears that “…one or more of the reference magnetic recordings by an electronic device, accessing a…” should read “…one or more of the reference magnetic recordings by an electronic device comprise a…”. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret line 5 of claims 8, 18, and 28 to read “…one or more of the reference magnetic recordings by an electronic device comprise a…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means”. Because the following claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Such claim limitations and their corresponding structure(s) are as follows. In claim 31: line 2, “means for accessing…”; line 4, “means for accessing…”; line 5, “means for comparing…”; line 6, “means for … determining…”; and line 7, “means for … authenticating”; are being interpreted to cover the structure that performs these steps described in: claim 1, “electronic device”; claim 11, “one or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media…”; claim 21, “a system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media coupled to one or more of the processors…”; as well as the corresponding structure found in at least Figs. 2 and 20, ¶¶0050-0067, and ¶¶0106-0126 of applicant’s Specification.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 9, 19, and 29 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.
Claims 9, 19, and 29 recite the limitation "the difference" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, claims 9, 19, and 29 each depend from claims 7, 17, and 27, respectively, which each depend from claims 1, 11, and 21, respectively. None of claims 1, 11, 21, 7, 17, or 27 recite a “difference” to provide antecedent basis for “the difference” recited in claims 9, 19, and 29. However, claims 8, 18, and 28 each recite “calculating a difference between the first and second series as aligned with each other”. Therefore, it appears that claims 9, 19, and 29 should depend from claims 8, 18, and 28, respectively. For the purposes of examination, examiner will interpret claims 9, 19, and 29 as depending from claims 8, 18, and 28, respectively.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-8, 10-15, 17-18, 20-25, 27-28, and 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0289753 to Mahasenan et al. (“Mahasenan”).
As to claim 21 (and similarly applied to claims 1, 11, and 31), Mahasenan discloses a system comprising: one or more processors (Mahasenan, Fig. 1, processor 114, and ¶0030; please also see ¶¶0019-0020); and one or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media coupled to one or more of the processors and comprising instructions operable when executed by one or more of the processors (Mahasenan, Fig. 1, memory 116, and ¶¶0030-0031; please also see ¶¶0019-0020) to cause the system to: access magnetic data from a magnetic-measurement device, wherein the magnetic data corresponds to one or more locations of the magnetic-measurement device (Mahasenan, ¶0037, "the mobile device can include a magnetic sensor. The magnetic sensor can determine a level and/or a direction of a magnetic field where the mobile device is located. Because, for instance, each location may have a unique or characteristic magnetic “fingerprint,” the determination of the magnetic field can allow the verification that the mobile device is actually in a same location determined using the location information above"; please also see ¶¶0007-0014, ¶0029, and ¶¶0038-0045); access geofencing data corresponding to an area (Mahasenan, ¶0039, "A baseline fingerprint can be determined during a commissioning of a relay, for instance. In some embodiments, a user can walk around the area and collect fingerprint data (RF and/or magnetic) to determine the baseline fingerprint. In some embodiments, the user can define the area and/or the geofence"; please also see ¶¶0007-0014 and ¶¶0037-0045); compare the magnetic data with the geofencing data (Mahasenan, ¶0043, "compare the determined magnetic field information with the magnetic fingerprint associated with the location"; please also see ¶¶0007-0014 and ¶¶0037-0045); based on the comparison, determine that the locations correspond to the area (Mahasenan, ¶0043, "The determination of magnetic field information can allow embodiments herein to determine if the user is indeed at the location or if the location has somehow been spoofed, for instance. Embodiments of the present disclosure can compare the determined magnetic field information with the magnetic fingerprint associated with the location"; please also see ¶¶0007-0014 and ¶¶0037-0045); based on the determination, authenticate the magnetic-measurement device for access to one or more resources (Mahasenan, ¶0044, "Depending on the comparison, embodiments of the present disclosure can allow access or deny access. For example, if the determined magnetic field information “matches” the magnetic fingerprint (and/or the RF fingerprint), embodiments of the present disclosure can determine that a valid user is actually present at the location attempting to gain access and can allow the user access"; please also see ¶¶0007-0014, ¶¶0037-0045, ¶¶0050-0059, and ¶0064).
As to claim 22 (and similarly applied to claims 2 and 12), Mahasenan discloses the system of Claim 21, wherein the system is a component of the magnetic-measurement device (Mahasenan, Fig. 1 and ¶¶0019-0020).
As to claim 23 (and similarly applied to claims 3 and 13), Mahasenan discloses the media of Claim 21, wherein the magnetic-measurement device is a smartphone (Mahasenan, Fig. 1 and ¶¶0019-0020).
As to claim 24 (and similarly applied to claims 4 and 14), Mahasenan discloses the media of Claim 21, wherein: the magnetic data comprises one or more magnetic-field values measured by the magnetic-measurement device at one or more of the locations (Mahasenan, ¶0037; please also see ¶¶0007-0014, ¶0029, and ¶¶0038-0045); and the geofencing data comprises one or more magnetic-field values or ranges of magnetic-field values corresponding to the area (Mahasenan, ¶0039; please also see ¶0007-0014 and ¶¶0037-0045).
As to claim 25 (and similarly applied to claims 5 and 15), Mahasenan discloses the media of Claim 24, wherein, the magnetic-field values comprise one or more of: a strength of a magnetic field; a gradient of the magnetic field; an inclination angle of the magnetic field; a declination angle of the magnetic field; magnetic susceptibility; magnetic conductivity; one or more individual components of one or more magnetic-field values; one or more derivatives of one or more of magnetic-field values; or a combination of one or more magnetic-field values (Mahasenan, ¶0029; please also see ¶¶0007-0014 and ¶¶0037-0045).
As to claim 27 (and similarly applied to claims 7 and 17), Mahasenan discloses the media of Claim 21, wherein the magnetic data comprises one or more candidate magnetic recordings corresponding to one or more of the locations (Mahasenan, ¶0037-0045, ¶¶0007-0014, and ¶0029. Examiner notes ¶0046 of applicant's specification, which states "The magnetic recording may serve as a reference magnetic recording that may be compared with a subsequently generated candidate magnetic recording to facilitate authentication of the user or device" and thus "candidate magnetic recording" is interpreted to refer to a magnetic recording of the device's current location that is to be compared with the reference magnetic recordings corresponding to the area (i.e., the geofencing data); please also see ¶0056 and ¶0058 of applicant's specification.); and the geofencing data comprises one or more reference magnetic recordings corresponding to the area (Mahasenan, ¶0039; please also see ¶0007-0014 and ¶¶0037-0045).
As to claim 28 (and similarly applied to claims 8 and 18), Mahasenan discloses the media of Claim 27, wherein: one or more of the candidate magnetic recordings comprise a first series of first magnetic-field values that represents a first magnetic recording that comprises a first set of first magnetic-field measurements that are each represented by one of the first magnetic-field values (Mahasenan, ¶0029, "The magnetic sensor can determine a magnetic field associated with (e.g., immediately around) the mobile device 102. The magnetic field can include a level (e.g., value and/or intensity) of the field. In some embodiments, the level of the magnetic field may be represented by Tesla units. The magnetic field can include a direction (e.g., an orientation) of the field. In some embodiments, the direction of the magnetic field may be represented by a compass heading (e.g., in degrees)"); one or more of the reference magnetic recordings by an electronic devicecomprise a second series of second magnetic-field values that represents a second magnetic recording that comprises a second set of second magnetic-field measurements that are each represented by one of the second magnetic-field values (Mahasenan, ¶¶0039-0041; please also see ¶0007-0014 and ¶¶0037-0045); and comparing the magnetic data with the geofencing data comprises: approximately aligning the first and second series with each other; calculating a difference between the first and second series as aligned with each other; and determining a similarity between the first and second series based on the difference (Mahasenan, ¶¶0042-0045; please also see ¶¶0013-0014).
As to claim 30 (and similarly applied to claims 10 and 20), Mahasenan discloses the media of Claim 28, wherein determining the similarity between the first and second series based on the difference comprises: comparing the difference with a predetermined threshold; and determining that the first and second series are similar to each other when the difference is approximately less than the predetermined threshold (Mahasenan, ¶¶0042-0045; please also see ¶¶0013-0014).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 6, 16, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahasenan in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2012/0206129 to Mahan et al. (“Mahan”).
As to claim 26 (and similarly applied to claims 6 and 16), Mahasenan discloses the media of claim 24.
Mahasenan does not disclose: wherein one or more of the magnetic-field values corresponding to the area were obtained or derived from one or more of: World Magnetic Model (WMM); International Geomagnetic Reference Field (IGRF) model; or Enhanced Magnetic Model (EMM).
However, Mahan discloses: wherein one or more of the magnetic-field values corresponding to the area were obtained or derived from one or more of: World Magnetic Model (WMM); International Geomagnetic Reference Field (IGRF) model; or Enhanced Magnetic Model (EMM) (Mahan, Fig. 8 and ¶0086. Mahan describes a method of obtaining expected (i.e., reference, baseline) magnetic-field values from a data model such as the World Magnetic Model (WMM) and comparing them to measured magnetic-field (i.e., candidate) values).
Mahasenan and Mahan are considered to be similar to the claimed invention because they are in one or more of the same fields of: magnetic sensors and/or magnetic positioning using the magnetic field of the earth, particularly magnetic positioning based on detecting real-time magnetic field information and comparing it to reference magnetic field information; magnetometers; and/or methods for magnetic fingerprinting for proximity-based systems. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mahasenan to incorporate the teachings of Mahan to include: wherein one or more of the magnetic-field values corresponding to the area were obtained or derived from one or more of: World Magnetic Model (WMM); International Geomagnetic Reference Field (IGRF) model; or Enhanced Magnetic Model (EMM). Doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods (i.e., obtaining expected (i.e., reference, baseline) magnetic-field values from a data model such as the World Magnetic Model (WMM) and comparing them to measured magnetic-field (i.e., candidate) values) to yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 9, 19, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahasenan in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0379062 to Ho.
As to claim 29 (and similarly applied to claims 9 and 19), Mahasenan discloses the media of Claim 28.
Mahasenan does not disclose: wherein the difference comprises a sum of one or more Euclidean distances, dynamic time warping (DTW) distances, or Fréchet distances between corresponding first and second magnetic-field values.
However, Ho discloses: wherein the difference comprises a sum of one or more Euclidean distances, dynamic time warping (DTW) distances, or Fréchet distances between corresponding first and second magnetic-field values (Ho, ¶¶0084-0088).
Mahasenan and Ho are considered to be similar to the claimed invention because they are in one or more of the same fields of: magnetic sensors and/or magnetic positioning using the magnetic field of the earth, particularly magnetic positioning based on detecting real-time magnetic field information and comparing it to reference magnetic field information; magnetometers; and/or methods for magnetic fingerprinting for proximity-based systems. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mahasenan to incorporate the teachings of Ho to include: wherein the difference comprises a sum of one or more Euclidean distances, dynamic time warping (DTW) distances, or Fréchet distances between corresponding first and second magnetic-field values. Doing so would help by "[achieving] high accuracy even in areas with obstacles or undulating terrain" (Ho, ¶0006) across a variety of applications/environments including land, sea, and air (Ho, ¶0008). Additionally, it would be obvious to combine the teachings of Ho and Mahasenan because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
References Cited
Ho, Cheng-Tsai (2020). Method and system of magnetic positioning (US 2020/0379062 A1). Filed 2020-05-29.
Mahan, Laura et al. (2012). System and method for calibrating a magnetometer with visual affordance (US 2012/0206129 A1). Filed 2011-08-26.
Mahasenan, Arun Vijayakumari et al. (2017). Magnetic fingerprinting for proximity-based systems (US 2017/0289753 A1). Filed 2016-03-30.
Other Pertinent References
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Chan, Shueng Han Gary et al. (2020). Effective indoor localization using geo-magnetic field (US 20200103232 A1). Filed 2018-02-05.
Haverinen, Janne (2015). Utilizing magnetic field based navigation (US 9078104 B2). Filed 2013-06-26.
Lee, Youngpo et al. (2021). Electronic device detecting location and method thereof (US 20210211839 A1). Filed 2020-10-26.
Okada, Keita et al. (2022). Position detection apparatus, position detection system, and position detection method (US 20220252425 A1). Filed 2022-02-03.
Sharma, Saransh et al. (2021). Electromagnet gradient coil apparatus for micro-device localization (US 20210141034 A1). Filed 2020-11-13.
Snow, Christopher Harris et al. (2012). System and method for determining quality of calibration parameters for a magnetometer (US 20120101766 A1). Filed 2011-09-19.
Steinberg, Gregory M. et al. (2025). System and method for providing location-based positioning and navigation in gps-denied environments (US 20250093495 A1). Filed 2024-11-18.
Villien, Christophe (2020). Method for determining the position and orientation of a vehicle (US 20200326189 A1). Filed 2020-04-10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL H LEONARD whose telephone number is (571)272-5720. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7am-4pm (PT).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, please 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, Yuwen (Kevin) Pan can be reached at (571)272-7855. 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.
/SAMUEL H. LEONARD/Examiner, Art Unit 2649 /YUWEN PAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2649
Prosecution Insights