DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/24/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/24/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (response page 15) that all of the recited limitations in amended claims 1, 3, 4, 6-10, 12, 17, 18, and 56-60 are required to be performed, Examiner agrees that claim 1 no longer recites conditional language. However, claims 3, 4, 6, 7, and 57 still recite a conditional step “when the variance is within the predetermined range of values, determining that the location or orientation of the first device did not substantially change during the predetermined period of time”.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (response pages 15-16) that paragraphs 27, 37, and 45, and Figs. 2 and 7 disclose structure corresponding to the “means for accessing a series of magnetic values measured by a magnetic-measurement devices over a predetermined period of time” and “means for, based on the series of magnetic values, determining that a location or orientation of the magnetic-measurement device did not substantially change during the predetermined time” recited in claim 55, Examiner agrees, and the corresponding 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) rejections have been withdrawn.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (response pages 17-18) that claim 1 recites a technological solution to the problem of location drift in GNSS or PNT systems, and therefore any alleged abstract idea is clearly integrated into a practical application, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 recites a processor accessing and processing data to determine that at least some location information should be updated, and updating the location information to coincide with the indication. However the claim does not recite any use of the updated location information in a GNSS or PNT system such that the problem of location drift in such systems could be solved.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that a full eligibility analysis of the claims is not needed because the claims recite meaningful limitations that sufficiently limit its practical application such that it clearly does not seek to tie up any judicial exception such that others cannot practice it (response pages 18-19), Applicant has not identified the meaningful limitations. Examiner requests further explanation regarding the meaningful limitations.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that claim 1 is directed to a particular improvement in PNT systems, similar to how claim 1 of Example 40 is directed to a particular improvement in collecting traffic data (response page 19-21), in that it limits updating at least some of the location information to coincide with the determination “when the location information does not substantially coincide with the determination”, Examiner respectfully disagrees, as claim 1 does not recite the updated location information being used in any GNSS or PNT system such that the problem of location drift could be solved. The claim recites only a processor accessing and processing data, which does not provide any technological improvement to GNSS or PNT systems.
Further, the updating has been identified as part of the abstract idea, and therefore cannot be relied upon to provide the improvement – see MPEP 21605(a) “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements.”
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the claims are similar to Example 42 because they recite a combination of additional elements that recite a specific improvement (response pages 21-23), Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant has identified, as additional elements:
by a processor, accessing a series of magnetic values measured by a magnetic-sensor system of a first device over a predetermined period of time
by the processor, determining an indication that a location or orientation of the first device did not substantially change during the predetermined period of time
by the processor, accessing location information from a GNSS receiver, an INS, or a communication interface of the first device during the predetermined period of time
by the processor, comparing the location information with the indication that the location or orientation of the first device did not substantially change
by the processor, determining that the location information does not substantially coincide with the indication, updating at least some of the location information to coincide with the determination.
Applicant has therefore identified, as additional elements, all of the limitations of claim 1. These limitations have already been identified as either the abstract idea itself, insignificant extra solution activity, or generic computer equipment. The abstract idea cannot itself be an additional element, and the insignificant extra solution activity and generic computer equipment do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more for the reasons discussed previously.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the claims are similar to Example 45, a controller for an injection molding apparatus, because at least the amended first, third, fourth, and fifth limitations are additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (response pages 24-26), Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The fourth (“by the processor, comparing the location information...”) and fifth (“by the processor, determining that the location information does not substantially coincide...”) limitations have been identified as the judicial exception itself, and therefore cannot comprise additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The first (“by a processor, accessing a series of magnetic values...”) and third (“by the processor, accessing location information from a GNSS receiver...”) comprise insignificant extra-solution activity, data gathering, that does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Applicant further argues that the first, third, fourth and fifth limitations add a meaningful limitation in that they provide improved detection and correction of location drift in PNT systems so that the claim as a whole improves upon previous location drift techniques. Examiner respectfully disagrees, as there is no PNT system recited in the claim, let alone a PNT system that makes use of the updated location information to provide improved detection and correction of location drift. The updated location information is not recited as being used in any way that could be considered to result in an improvement or a practical application. Claim 1 is limited to a processor accessing, comparing, and updating data. Example 45 step (d), in contrast, sends a control signal to an injection molding apparatus to instruct the apparatus to open the mold and eject the molded polyurethane.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that neither Ryden nor Zangvil, alone or in combination, disclose, teach, or suggest amended claims 1, 19, 37, and 55 (response pages 27-28), Examiner agrees. The claims are newly rejection in view of Ryden and Shuman, necessitated by the amendments.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
Examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of method claims 3, 4, 6, 7, and 57 requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. The steps recited in claim 3 lines 7-9 are not required to be performed unless the variance is within the predetermined range of values. The broadest reasonable interpretation of claims 3, 4, 6, 7, and 57 therefore does not require these steps. See MPEP 2111.04 II and Ex parte Schulhauser.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-10, 12, 17-19, 21, 22, 26-28, 30, 35-37, 39, 40, 44-46, 48, and 53-74 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 – Statutory Category
Claim 1 recites a method and is therefore a process.
Step 2A, Prong One – Recitation of a Judicial Exception
Claim 1 recites:
based on the series of magnetic values, determining an indication that a location or orientation of the magnetic-measurement device did not substantially change during the predetermined period of time;
comparing the location information with the indication that the location or orientation of the first device did not substantially change during the predetermined period of time;
determining that the location information does not substantially coincide with the indication that the location or orientation of the first device did not substantially change during the predetermined period of time;
based on the determination that the location information does not substantially coincide with the indication that the location or orientation of the first device did not substantially change during the predetermined period of time: updating at least some of the location information to coincide with the indication that the location or orientation of the first device did not substantially change during the predetermined period of time.
These steps fall within the mathematical concepts or mental processes grouping of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG.
The step “based on the series of magnetic values, determining an indication that a location or orientation of the magnetic-measurement device did not substantially change during the predetermined period of time” could be performed mentally or with pencil and paper by observing the series of magnetic values and evaluating to what extent they have changed during the predetermined period of time, or by performing mathematical calculations such as the variance calculation recited in dependent claim 2.
The step “comparing the location information with the indication that the location or orientation of the first device did not substantially change during the predetermined period of time” could similarly be performed mentally or with pencil and paper, as could the step “determining that the location information does not substantially coincide with the indication that the location or orientation of the first device did not substantially change during the predetermined period of time” and the step “based on the determination that the location information does not substantially coincide with the indication that the location or orientation of the first device did not substantially change during the predetermined period of time: updating at least some of the location information to coincide with the indication that the location or orientation of the first device did not substantially change during the predetermined period of time.
Claim 1 therefore recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two – Practical Application
Claim 1 further recites:
accessing a series of magnetic values measured by a magnetic-sensor system of a first device over a predetermined period of time;
accessing location information from a GNSS receiver, an INS, or a communication interface of the first device during the predetermined period of time;
the method performed by “a processor”.
However accessing the series of magnetic values and the location information is merely insignificant extra-solution activity, i.e. data gathering, and the “processor” includes within its scope generic computer equipment that is merely used as a tool to perform the abstract idea. In performing the abstract idea the “electronic device” merely performs the generic computer functions of receiving data and performing calculations.
These elements therefore do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
Step 2B – Inventive Concept
As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the additional elements recited in the claim include data gathering and generic computer equipment. These elements therefore do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, i.e. they do not amount to an inventive concept. Claim 1 is therefore not patent eligible.
Claims 3, 4, 6, and 7 describe calculations performed to obtain the variance without integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or adding significantly more.
Claim 8 recites the first device comprising the processor, magnetic-sensor system, GNSS receiver, INS, and communication interface. This is merely a description of the source of the accessed data and therefore does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more.
Claim 9 further describes the step of “updating” without integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or adding significantly more.
Claim 10 further describes the “updating” as comprising the mathematical calculation of a spatial midpoint between or among two or more locations indicated by at least some of the magnetic values, and therefore merely further describes the abstract idea without integrating it into a practical application or adding significantly more.
Claim 12 describes the magnetic values without integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or adding significantly more.
Claims 17 and 18 merely further describe the first device without integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or adding significantly more.
Claims 56-60 merely further describe the magnetic values, variance, and updating without integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or adding significantly more.
Claim 19 and its dependents differ from claims 1, 3, 4, 6-10, 12, 17, 18 and 56-60 in reciting computer readable non-transitory storage media. Claim 37 and its dependents differ from claims 1, 3, 4, 6-10, 12, 17, 18 and 56-60 in reciting a system comprising one or more processors and one or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media. Claim 55 differs from claim 1 in reciting “means”. However these elements comprise or include within their scope generic computer equipment that does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 8, 9, 12, 17-19, 21, 26, 27, 30, 35-37, 39, 44, 45, 48, 53-56, 59, 60, 61, 66-68, 73, and 74 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryden (US 20200120479 A1) in view of Shuman (US 20220350030 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 19, 37, and 55, Ryden (US 20200120479 A1) teaches [NOTE: limitations not taught by Ryden are lined through; limitations added by amendment are underlined] a method comprising:
by a processor (wireless device 202, Fig. 2 comprises a processor as shown at 502, Fig. 5;), accessing a series of magnetic values (2:5, Fig. 2; para. [0056] “sensor measurements may be related to… magnetic intensity” where “magnetic intensity may refer to the strength or intensity of a magnetic field, or to magnetic flux density”) measured by a magnetic-sensor system of a first device (sensors of 202, Fig. 2, including magnetometer as per para. [0032]; 202 is the first device) over a predetermined period of time (para. [0059] “measurements… made over one or more predefined time windows”);
by the processor, based on the series of magnetic values, determining an indication that a location or orientation of the first device did not substantially change during the predetermined period of time (2:5, Fig. 2 as per para. [0044] “wireless device 202…evaluates the received mobility criterion with respect to the monitored sensor measurements” and paras. [0121]-[0123] “the mobility status change criteria can be based upon… variance in magnetic intensity >= magnetic intensity threshold”, where the threshold distinguishes between a location/orientation change or lack thereof);
by the processor, accessing location information from a Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) receiver, an inertial navigation system (INS), or a communication interface of the first device during the predetermined period of time (para. [0054) “the wireless device is capable of estimating its position based on …. GNSS”);
Shuman, in analogous art (sensors 213, SPS receiver 217, Fig. 2; para. [0065] “sensor(s) 213 may include one or more magnetometers”), teaches:
by a processor, comparing (510, Fig. 5 in view of para. [0096] “At block 510... compare changes in the position and time determined using the SPS signals with information derived from non-SPS information”) location information (502 “Location information from the Location Engine”, Fig. 5) with an indication that the location or orientation of the first device did not substantially change during the predetermined period of time (“Location information from the Sensor(s)” 508, Fig. 5; para. [0065] “sensor(s) 213 may include one or more magnetometers”; see description of comparison in para. [0096]; the magnetometers will indicate no substantial change in location or orientation at least at some times); and
by the processor, determining that the location information does not substantially coincide with the indication that the location or orientation of the first device did not substantially change during the predetermined period of time (510 and 512 “N”, Fig. 5); and
by the processor, based on the determination that the location information does not substantially coincide with the indication that the location or orientation of the first device did not substantially change during the predetermined period of time (512 “N”, Fig. 5):
updatinq at least some of the location information to coincide with the indication that the location or orientation of the first device did not substantially change during the predetermined period of time (516 “Determine Location Estimate... Based on Sensor information”, 514 “Transmit Location in a wireless message” and “Update Cache location”, 506 “Cached Location Information”, Fig. 5).
Shuman provides for “accurate location estimates ... when the SPS signals are not reliable” (abstract). It would have been obvious to modify Ryden in view of Shuman in order to provide for accurate location estimates when Ryden’s GNSS signals are not reliable.
Regarding claims 3, 21, and 39, Ryden teaches wherein determining the indication that the location or orientation of the first device did not substantially change during the predetermined period of time comprises: calculating a variance in the magnetic values over the predetermined period of time (para. [0123] “variance in magnetic intensity”); comparing the variance with a predetermine range of values (para. [0123] “variance in magnetic intensity>=magnetic intensity threshold”, where the corresponding range or variance values less than the magnetic intensity threshold meets the claimed range); and when the variance is within the predetermine range of values, determining that the location or orientation of the first device did not substantially change during the predetermined period of time (when the variance is less than the threshold, mobility status is not fulfilled as per para [0121] and [0121], corresponding to no substantial change in location as claimed).
Regarding claims 8, 26, and 44, Ryden further teaches: wherein the first device (202, Fig. 2, with details shown at 502, Fig 5) comprises the processor (P, Fig. 5), magnetic-sensor system (sensors of 202, Fig. 2, including magnetometer as per para. [0032]), GNSS receiver (para. [0054] “the wireless device is capable of estimating its position based on... GNSS”), INS (para. [0091] “IMU Sensor measurements can be integrated for reporting location measurements”; para. [0031] “IMU, which is also referred to as an Inertial Navigation System (INS)”), and communication interface (C, Fig. 5).
Regarding claims 9, 27, and 45, Shuman’s updating comprises:
updating at least some of the location information to indicate that the location or orientation of the first device did not substantially change during the predetermined period of time (one would expect lack of movement at least at some times, e.g. when the “amount... of movement” in para. [0135] is zero); or
updating at least some of the location information to coincide with one or more locations or orientations indicated by one or more of the magnetic values (516 “Determine Location Estimate... Based on Sensor information”, 514 “Transmit Location in a wireless message” and “Update Cache location”, 506 “Cached Location Information”, Fig. 5).
Regarding claims 12, 30, and 48, each of Ryden’s magnetic values comprises 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 (para. [0056] “magnetic intensity” meets at least total value of a magnetic field).
Regarding claims 17, 35, and 53, Ryden’s first device (202, Fig. 2, with details shown at 502, Fig 5) comprises the magnetic-sensor system (sensors of 202, Fig. 2, including magnetometer as per para. [0032]), GNSS receiver (para. [0054] “the wireless device is capable of estimating its position based on... GNSS”), INS (para. [0091] “IMU Sensor measurements can be integrated for reporting location measurements”; para. [0031] “IMU, which is also referred to as an Inertial Navigation System (INS)”), and communication interface (C, Fig. 5). Ryden’s first device further comprises processor(s) and media (P, M at 502, Fig. 5). Ryden does not teach a third device comprises the processor(s) and media instead of the first device However, modifying Ryden such that a third device comprises the processor(s) and media is merely a matter of making separable (MPEP 2144.04 V. C). It would have been obvious to modify Ryden by separating the sensors from the processor(s) and media, i.e. as a peripheral device, because it is merely a matter of making separable with the advantage of allowing the sensors and processor(s)/media to be independently optimized for different applications.
Regarding claims 18, 36, and 54, Ryden’s magnetic-measurement device is a vehicle, a robot, or a handheld device (wireless device 202, Fig. 2 may be a “mobile telephone” as per para. [0002]).
Regarding claims 56, 61, and 68, each of Ryden’s magnetic values implicitly correspond to the location or orientation of the first device during the predetermined period of time.
Regarding claim 59, 66, 73 Ryden teaches wherein the series of magnetic values are in a window of a predetermined length corresponding to the predetermined period of time (para. [0059] “measurements… made over one or more predefined time windows”).
Regarding claims 60, 67, 74 Ryden teaches wherein the predetermined length is a predetermined number of samples at a predetermined sampling rate (para. [0051] “sensor capabilities” including “sampling frequency”, where the predefined time window in para. [0059] and the predefined sampling frequency in para. [0051] result in a predetermined number of samples).
Claims 4, 6, 22, 40, 57, 62, 63, 69, and 70 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryden (US 20200120479 A1) in view of Shuman (US 20220350030 A1) as applied to claims 3, 21, 39 above, and further in view of Zangvil (US 20220236425 A1) and OFFICIAL NOTICE.
Regarding claims 4, 6, 22, 40, 57, 62, 63, 69, and 70 Ryden does not teach the variance comprising the claimed features. However, Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that it is well known to calculate variance according to:
PNG
media_image1.png
120
322
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
meeting the claim language “wherein the variance comprises a squared deviation from a means of the series of magnetic values”, “wherein calculating the variance comprises calculating one or more difference or distance calculations”, and “wherein the variance comprises a measure of dispersion of the magnetic values within a window relative to their mean or median”.
It would have been obvious to modify Ryden by calculating variance as claimed because it is a well-known mathematical method that could be used with predictable results.
Claims 7, 64, and 71 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryden (US 20200120479 A1) in view of Shuman (US 20220350030 A1) as applied to claims 3, 21, 39 above, and further in view of Zangvil (US 20220236425 A1) and Toutov (US 20220026235 A1).
Regarding claims 7, 64, and 71, Ryden does not provide details of the variance calculation, and therefore does not teach wherein the variance is calculated using a nearest centroid classifier, correlation optimized warping (COW), dynamic time warping (DTW), or one or more similarity correlation analyses. However Ryden’s variance measures the similarity of magnetic value over the period of time, and Toutov, in analogous art, teaches comparing similarity of magnetic measurements over time using similarity correlation analyses (para. [0057] “When multiple magnetic measurements… are available within a region, analysis can be performed to evaluate the similarities… through the use of correlation analysis”).
It would have been obvious to modify Ryden according to Toutov because it is a matter of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results is an exemplary rationale that supports a conclusion of obviousness, see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.
Claims 10, 28, and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryden (US 20200120479 A1) in view of Shuman (US 20220350030 A1) as applied to claims 9, 27, and 45 above, and further in view of [Wang (US 20070118286 A1) or Lennen (US 20100134354 A1)].
Regarding claims 10, 28, and 46, Ryden and Shuman do not teach wherein updating at least some of the location information to coincide with one or more locations or orientations indicated by one or more of the magnetic values comprises: calculating a spatial midpoint between or among two or more locations indicated by at least some of the magnetic values; and updating at least some of the location information to coincide with the spatial midpoint. However the calculated spatial midpoint comprises an interpolation between two locations, and interpolation is a well-known mathematical technique. For example, Wang para. [0085] teaches interpolating inertial-based position measurements in order to align with GPS-based measurements, and Lennen para. [0061] teaches interpolation in order to improve measurement resolution. It would have been obvious to further modify Ryden by performing interpolation as taught by Wang or Lennen in order to align measurements or improve resolution. Further, any interpolation points, including the spatial midpoint between or among two or more locations indicated by at least some of the magnetic values, would at least be obvious to try. One of ordinary skill would recognize that the spatial midpoint between two locations would provide the advantage of doubling the resolution.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 58, 65, and 72 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASSI J GALT whose telephone number is (571)270-1469. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9AM - 5PM 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, WILLIAM KELLEHER can be reached on (571)270-5144. 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.
/CASSI J GALT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648