DETAILED ACTION
This final Office action is in response to the amendment filed 8/5/2026.
Claims 2, 5, 6, and 18 have been amended.
Claims 26 and 27 are new claims.
Claims 2-27 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(d)
Due to the amendment filed 8/5/2026, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) of claim 5 has been withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Specifically, due to the amendment filed 8/5/2026, new references have been applied in combination with Askarpour to teach the amended features. See updated rejections below.
Key to Interpreting this Office Action
To enhance clarity, claim language is underlined throughout this Office action.
Citations to the prior art are provided in parentheses following each claim limitation, along with any necessary supplemental explanations.
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.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 26 recites the digital filter is configured to remove a frequency of about 50 Hz or about 60 Hz. The term “about” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Specifically, paragraph [0118] of the specification filed 10/22/2024 provides support for removing 50 or 60 Hz and does not describe how much deviation from those values that would encompass “about 50 Hz” or “about 60 Hz.”
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.
Claims 2, 3, 6-12, 14-22, 24, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Askarpour (US 2013/0345972 A1), hereinafter Askarpour, in view of Carter et al. (US 2006/0247847 A1), hereinafter Carter.
Claim 2
Askarpour discloses a system that comprises:
a magnetometer configured to output magnetometer data (see ¶0015, regarding heading system 100 includes triaxial magnetometer 102, where is output and read from magnetometer 102, as described in ¶0014, with respect to step 12 of Figure 1);
an accelerometer configured to output accelerometer data (see ¶0030, with respect to Figure 2, regarding accelerometers 212 as part of unit 200 to provide initial states, as described in ¶0032);
a gyroscope configured to output gyroscope data (see ¶0015, regarding heading system 100 includes triaxial gyro 104, where is output and read from gyro 104, as described in ¶0014, with respect to step 12 of Figure 1);
a memory comprising executable instructions (see ¶0023, regarding the algorithm of Figure 1 is implemented in firmware or software); and
data processing hardware, wherein execution of the executable instructions by the data processing hardware (see ¶0023, regarding the algorithm of Figure 1 is implemented in firmware or software and employed by microprocessor 120 of heading reference system 100) causes the data processing hardware to:
determine, using the magnetometer data, a heading estimate (see ¶0016, with respect to steps 22 and 20 of Figure 1, regarding that the detected magnetometer 102 reading is used to provide the heading value);
compare the magnetometer data and the gyroscope data (see ¶0016, with respect to step 14 of Figure 1, regarding comparing the signals from magnetometer 104 and gyro 104);
identify an inconsistency between the magnetometer data and the gyroscope data (see ¶0016, with respect to step 16 of Figure 1, regarding the determination that a difference in changes in values of the magnetometer and gyro data exceeds a predetermined acceptable threshold value, defined as the expected gyro drift), wherein the inconsistency is at least partly due to a magnetic field distortion that affects the magnetometer and is caused by a ferromagnetic structure (see ¶0015, regarding the comparison is used to identify changes in accuracy of the heading system 100 due to soft iron magnetic disturbances, defined by the presence of local soft iron, as described in ¶0001); and
combine the magnetometer data and the gyroscope data to determine a corrected heading estimate (see ¶0025, regarding that an extended Kalman filter is employed in order to blend the gyro 104 measurement with the magnetometer 102 measurement based on their corresponding error covariance, as additionally described in ¶0033).
The system of Askarpour is not specifically defined as a wheel configured to attach to a human-propelled shopping cart and to monitor movement of the human-propelled shopping cart in a retail space, such that the “heading estimate” and “corrected heading estimate” are of the human-propelled shopping cart. However, Askarpour further discloses that the method may be used in any non-aircraft vehicle that requires a source of heading (see ¶0029); therefore, it would be reasonable to incorporate the system of Askarpour onto a wheel of a shopping cart, in light of Carter.
Specifically, Carter teaches a wheel configured to attach to a human-propelled shopping cart and to monitor movement of the human-propelled shopping cart in a retail space (see ¶0091-0093, regarding processor 220 is disposed in the wheel of a shopping cart and monitors heading information from heading sensor 202 and speed or distance information from motion sensor 206), the wheel comprising heading sensors, defined as including magnetic field sensors 204 in ¶0059 (similar to the magnetometer of Askarpour) and rotation sensors in ¶0075 (similar to the gyroscope of Askarpour), and processor 220, defined as including on-board memory in ¶0094 (similar to the memory and data processing hardware of Askarpour) (see ¶0059, regarding heading sensor 202 is disposed within one or more of the object’s wheels, where the wheeled object is a cart, as described in ¶0079; ¶0091-0093, regarding processor 220 is disposed in the wheel of a shopping cart). Thus, by modifying the system of Askarpour to be implemented on the human-propelled shopping cart wheel of Carter, the steps of “determining a heading estimate” and “determining a corrected heading estimate” of Askarpour are specifically of the human-propelled shopping cart taught by Carter.
Since the systems of Askarpour and Carter are directed to the same purpose, i.e. determining the heading of a mobile system, 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 the system of Askarpour to be a wheel configured to attach to a human-propelled shopping cart and to monitor movement of the human-propelled shopping cart in a retail space, such that the “heading estimate” and “corrected heading estimate” are of the human-propelled shopping cart, in light of Carter, with the predictable result of applying the method of Askarpour to an applicable system (¶0026, ¶0029 of Askarpour) such as shopping carts (¶0057 of Carter), where heading information can be used determine the position of the shopping cart (¶0077 of Carter) using a preferred embodiment in which components are disposed within a wheel of the shopping cart (¶0059, ¶0075 of Carter), where benefits of an improved design are well-known. See MPEP 2143(I)(F).
While Askarpour discloses the use of accelerometer data, as discussed above, Askarpour does not disclose the step of compensate, using the accelerometer data, for a tilt of the magnetometer. However, the technique of compensating tilt of a magnetometer using acceleration data is known and is further taught by Carter.
Specifically, Carter further teaches the known technique of compensat[ing], using data from accelerometers (similar to the accelerometer data of Askarpour), for a tilt of the magnetic field measurements, defined as being detected by magnetic field sensor 204 in ¶0051 (similar to the magnetometer of Askarpour) (see ¶0072, regarding that by determining the orientation of the object using accelerometers, standard trigonometric calculations are used to transform the magnetic field measurements from an object-based coordinate system to an Earth-based coordinate system, where the accelerometers are used to determine whether, and by how much, the object is inclined with respect to the local gravitational field; ¶0114-0118, with respect to Figure 3, regarding the frame definitions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combination of Askarpour and Carter to compensate, using the accelerometer data, for a tilt of the magnetometer, in light of Carter, with the predictable result of correcting the magnetic measurements so as to arrive at an improved estimate of the Earth’s magnetic field (¶0071-0072 of Carter).
Claim 3
Askarpour further discloses that execution of the executable instructions by the data processing hardware causes the data processing hardware to combine the magnetometer data and the gyroscope data using a Kalman filter (see ¶0025, regarding that an extended Kalman filter is employed in order to blend the gyro 104 measurement with the magnetometer 102 measurement based on their corresponding error covariance, as additionally described in ¶0033).
Claim 6
Askarpour discloses the claimed system for monitoring movement (see ¶0026, regarding that the method can be employed in any heading indication system, such as non-aircraft vehicles, as described in ¶0029), the system comprising:
a magnetometer (i.e. triaxial magnetometer 102, described in ¶0015);
a gyroscope (i.e. triaxial gyro 104, described in ¶0015);
a memory comprising executable instructions (see ¶0023, regarding the algorithm of Figure 1 is implemented in firmware or software); and
data processing hardware, wherein execution of the executable instructions by the data processing hardware (see ¶0023, regarding the algorithm of Figure 1 is implemented in firmware or software and employed by microprocessor 120 of heading reference system 100) causes the data processing hardware to:
identify magnetometer data associated with the magnetometer (see ¶0015, regarding heading system 100 includes triaxial magnetometer 102, where is output and read from magnetometer 102, as described in ¶0014, with respect to step 12 of Figure 1);
identify gyroscope data associated with the gyroscope (see ¶0015, regarding heading system 100 includes triaxial gyro 104, where is output and read from gyro 104, as described in ¶0014, with respect to step 12 of Figure 1);
determine a difference between the magnetometer data and the gyroscope data (see ¶0016, with respect to step 16 of Figure 1, regarding the determination that a difference in changes in values of the magnetometer and gyro data exceeds a predetermined acceptable threshold value, defined as the expected gyro drift); and
determine a heading using one or more of the magnetometer data or the gyroscope data based at least partly on the difference between the magnetometer data and the gyroscope data (see ¶0016, with respect to steps 16, 18, 20, and 22 of Figure 1, regarding that based on whether the detected difference exceeds the predetermined acceptable threshold value, either the detected magnetometer reading is used to provide the heading value in step 22 or gyro change plus the last heading is used to provide the heading value in step 20).
Askarpour does not explicitly disclose that the “system for monitoring movement” is of a human-propelled cart, such that the determined “heading” is of the human propelled-cart. However, Askarpour further discloses that the method may be used in any non-aircraft vehicle that requires a source of heading (see ¶0029); therefore, it would be reasonable to incorporate the system of Askarpour onto a shopping cart, in light of Carter.
Specifically, Carter discloses a system for monitoring motion of a human-propelled cart (see ¶0091-0093, regarding processor 220 is disposed in the wheel of a shopping cart and monitors heading information from heading sensor 202 and speed or distance information from motion sensor 206), such that a heading (similar to the heading of Askarpour) of the human-propelled cart is determined (see ¶0122-0125, with respect to Figure 2A, regarding that heading is determined from magnetic field measurements taken by magnetic sensors 204). By modifying the system of Askarpour to be implemented on the human-propelled shopping cart wheel of Carter, the step of “determine a heading” of Askarpour is of the human-propelled shopping cart taught by Carter.
Since the systems of Askarpour and Carter are directed to the same purpose, i.e. determining the heading of a mobile system, 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 the system for monitoring movement of Askarpour to be of a human-propelled cart, such that the step of determine a heading of Askarpour is of the human propelled-cart, in light of Carter, with the predictable result of applying the method of Askarpour to an applicable system (¶0026, ¶0029 of Askarpour), such as shopping carts (¶0057 of Carter), where heading information can be used determine the position of the shopping cart (¶0077 of Carter) using a preferred embodiment in which components are disposed within a wheel of the shopping cart (¶0059, ¶0075 of Carter), where benefits of an improved design are well-known. See MPEP 2143(I)(F).
While Askarpour discloses the use of an extended Kalman filter (i.e. “digital filter”) to blend the gyro 104 measurement with the magnetometer 102 measurement (see ¶0025), Askarpour does not disclose the step of filter, using a digital filter, the magnetometer data, such that the “determine” steps use filtered magnetometer data. However, the technique of filtering magnetometer data for similar applications is known and is further taught by Carter.
Specifically, Carter further teaches the known technique of filter[ing], using a digital filter, the analog signal received from magnetic field sensor 204 (similar to the magnetometer data of Askarpour) (see ¶0061, with respect to Figure 2A, regarding signal conditioning is performed on an analog signal received from magnetic field sensor 204 via signal conditioning module 208 that includes an ADC that converts the signal into a sampled digital signal that can be further conditioned, e.g., using a digital filter such as a finite impulse response (FIR), infinite impulse response (IIR) filter, Wiener, or Kalman filter, as described in ¶0067), such that all subsequent processing is performed on the filtered signals of magnetic field sensor 204 (see ¶0062, regarding that signal conditioning module 208 low-pass filters the signals from sensors 204 prior to further processing; Figure 2A, depicting magnetic field sensor signal conditioning module 208 provided between magnetic field sensor 204 and processor 220).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combination of Askarpour and Carter to filter, using a digital filter, the magnetometer data, in light of Carter, so as to use the filtered magnetometer data in the “determine” steps taught by Askarpour, with the predictable result of reducing artificial fluctuations in the field components detected by magnetic sensors (¶0067 of Carter), as a result of chatter or shimmy of a wheel (¶0066 of Carter).
Claim 7
Askarpour, as modified by Carter, further discloses that the magnetometer data is based at least partly on one or more ferromagnetic objects in an environment of the human-propelled cart, and wherein the difference between the magnetometer data and the gyroscope data is based at least partly on the one or more ferromagnetic objects (see ¶0024, regarding the difference in rates of change being greater than a predetermined threshold value represents the soft iron impact on the magnetometer).
Claim 8
Askarpour, as modified by Carter, further discloses that the execution of the executable instructions by the data processing hardware further causes the data processing hardware to:
combine, using a Kalman filter, the gyroscope data and the magnetometer data to obtain fused data, wherein the determination of the heading of the human-propelled cart is based at least partly on the fused data (see ¶0025, regarding that an extended Kalman filter is employed to blend gyro 104 measurement with magnetometer 102 measurement based on their corresponding error covariance, as further described in ¶0033).
Claim 9
Askarpour further discloses that the magnetometer data comprises a first heading estimate for the human-propelled cart using an output of the magnetometer, and wherein the gyroscope data comprises a second heading estimate for the human-propelled cart using an output of the gyroscope (see ¶0016, regarding the output data from both magnetometer 102 and gyro 104 are read and processed to provide signals corresponding to any change in the value of the magnetometer 102 reading and the gyro 104 reading, such that magnetometer 102 reading may be used as the heading value in step 22, and the gyro change is added to the last heading to generate the heading value in step 18). The pre-processed magnetometer and gyro readings of Askarpour may be reasonably interpreted as “heading estimates.”
Claim 10
Askarpour further discloses that the execution of the executable instructions by the data processing hardware further causes the data processing hardware to:
identify a variation in a magnetic field using the gyroscope data (see ¶0016, regarding that the difference between the changes in values of the magnetometer reading and gyro reading is used to determine soft iron magnetic disturbances).
The soft iron magnetic disturbances that influence the magnetometer readings of Askarpour reasonably teach a “variation in a magnetic field.”
Claim 11
Askarpour further discloses that the execution of the executable instructions by the data processing hardware further causes the data processing hardware to:
obtain, from the magnetometer, a first output, wherein the magnetometer data is based at least partly on the first output (see ¶0016, regarding that output from magnetometer 102 is read and processed); and
obtain, from the gyroscope, a second output, wherein the gyroscope data is based at least partly on the second output (see ¶0016, regarding that output from gyro 104 is read and processed).
Claim 12
Askarpour, as modified by Carter, further discloses that the execution of the executable instructions by the data processing hardware further causes the data processing hardware to:
combine the gyroscope data and the magnetometer data to obtain combined data (see ¶0025, regarding that gyro 104 measurement is blended with magnetometer 102 measurement);
wherein to determine the heading of the human-propelled cart, the execution of the executable instructions by the data processing hardware further causes the data processing hardware to:
determine the heading of the human-propelled cart using the combined data (see ¶0033, regarding that an extended Kalman filter is used to blend all sensor data based on their corresponding error variance, so as to provide for an accurate estimate of heading).
Given that the blending of sensor data is based on their corresponding error variance, it is clear that the blending is performed in step 22 of Askarpour when the magnetometer is not influenced by the soft iron magnetic disturbances.
Claim 14
Askarpour, as modified by Carter, further discloses that the execution of the executable instructions by the data processing hardware further causes the data processing hardware to:
identify an environment associated with the human-propelled cart (see ¶0016, with respect to step 16 of Figure 1, regarding the determination that a difference in changes in values of the magnetometer and gyro data exceeds a predetermined acceptable threshold value, defined as the expected gyro drift, where the comparison is used to identify changes in accuracy of the heading system 100 due to soft iron magnetic disturbances, as described in ¶0015, defined by the presence of local soft iron, as described in ¶0001).
wherein to determine the heading of the human-propelled cart, the execution of the executable instructions by the data processing hardware further causes the data processing hardware to:
in response to identifying the environment, determine the heading of the human-propelled cart using the gyroscope data (see ¶0016, with respect to steps 18 and 20 of Figure 1, regarding that if the detected difference exceeds the acceptable threshold value, the gyro change plus the last heading is used as the corrected heading signal).
The presence of local soft iron (i.e. “environment”) in Askarpour is identified when the difference exceeds the acceptable threshold value.
Claim 15
Askarpour further discloses that the magnetometer is a multi-axis magnetometer (see ¶0015, regarding the triaxial magnetometer 102).
Claim 16
The combination of Askarpour and Carter further teaches that one or more of the gyroscope or the magnetometer are mounted to the human-propelled cart, given that the system of Askarpour includes magnetometer 102 and gyro 104 (see Figure 2) for installation to a wheel of a shopping cart of Carter (see ¶0059, ¶0075). As described in ¶0026 of Askarpour, the method may be employed in any heading indication system, such as non-aircraft vehicles (see ¶0029), while Carter teaches that heading sensor 202 may include a combination of magnetic and rotation sensors (see ¶0075) disposed in the wheel (see ¶0059).
Claim 17
Carter further teaches a communication system configured to communicate with a brake of the human-propelled cart based at least partly on the heading of the human-propelled cart (see ¶0048, with respect to Figure 2A, regarding that processor 220 determines the object’s position from information communicated from heading sensor 202 and outputs signals to suitable devices such as wheel brake 248; ¶0073, regarding information from heading sensor 202 is used to signal a wheel brake to engage and lock, and processor 220 checks heading of the wheel to determine if it is being dragged back toward the facility to signal the wheel to unlock), the brake configured to inhibit rotation of a wheel of the human-propelled cart in response to an input from the communication system (see ¶0073, regarding that information from heading sensor 202 is used to signal a wheel brake to engage and lock 202). The “communication system” may be reasonably interpreted as a function of processor 220 of Carter.
Claim 18
The combination of Askarpour and Carter disclose the claimed computer-implemented method for monitoring movement of a human-propelled cart, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 19
Carter further teaches determining a speed of the human-propelled cart (see ¶0077, regarding that motion sensor 206 comprises a speed sensor that measures the speed of the object, where the object is defined as a shopping cart in ¶0026), and determining a position of the human-propelled cart using the speed of the human-propelled cart and heading information (similar to the heading of Askarpour) of the human-propelled cart (see ¶0077, regarding processor 220 determines the position of the object by combining the object’s speed from motion sensor 206 and heading information from heading sensor 202; ¶0091).
Claim 20
Askarpour, as modified by Carter, further discloses determining the heading of the human-propelled cart comprises one or more of:
determining the heading of the human-propelled cart using the magnetometer data (see ¶0016, with respect to steps 22 and 20 of Figure 1, regarding that the detected magnetometer reading is used to provide the heading value);
determining the heading of the human-propelled cart using the gyroscope data (see ¶0016, with respect to steps 18 and 20 of Figure 1, regarding that the gyro change plus the last heading is used to provide the corrected heading value); or
determining the heading of the human-propelled cart using a combination of the magnetometer data and the gyroscope data (see ¶0025, regarding that an extended Kalman filter is employed to blend the gyro measurement with the magnetometer measurement based on their corresponding error covariance for providing an accurate estimate of heading, as described in ¶0033).
While Askarpour has been applied to all of the above limitations, only one of the above limitations is required to be taught by prior art.
Claim 21
Askarpour further discloses identifying the one or more of the magnetometer data or the gyroscope data using the difference between the magnetometer data and the gyroscope data (see ¶0016, with respect to Figure 1, regarding that the detected difference is used to determine whether the magnetometer reading is used for the heading in step 22 or the gyro change plus the last heading is used for the heading in step 18).
Claim 22
Askarpour further discloses detecting an anomaly using the difference between the magnetometer data and the gyroscope data (see ¶0016, with respect to step 16 of Figure 1, regarding the determination that a difference in changes in values of the magnetometer and gyro data exceeds a predetermined acceptable threshold value, defined as the expected gyro drift, where the comparison is used to identify changes in accuracy of the heading system 100 due to soft iron magnetic disturbances, as described in ¶0015, defined by the presence of local soft iron, as described in ¶0001).
An increase in the detected difference above an acceptable threshold caused by the presence of local soft iron in Askarpour reasonably teaches an “anomaly.”
Claim 24
Askarpour further discloses filtering one or more of at least a portion of the magnetometer data or at least a portion of the gyroscope data using the difference between the magnetometer data and the gyroscope data (see ¶0016, with respect to steps 16 and 18 of Figure 1, regarding that if the determination that a difference in changes in values of the magnetometer and gyro data exceeds a predetermined acceptable threshold value, the gyro change plus the last heading is used for the corrected heading value). With respect to Figure 1, the “magnetometer data” is effectively filtered out in step 18 to output the heading value in step 20.
Claim 26
Carter further teaches that the digital filter is configured to remove a frequency of about 50 Hz or about 60 Hz (see ¶0068, regarding signal conditioning module 208 includes a notch filter with a stopband at about 50 Hz or 60 Hz to reduce the effects of stray AC fields).
Claims 4 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Askarpour in view of Carter, and in further view of Honeywell (“Application Note - AN218: Vehicle Detection Using AMR Sensors,” 2005, Honeywell International Inc.), hereinafter Honeywell.
Claim 4
Carter further teaches that the retail space is a parking lot (see Figure 1, depicting the parking lot).
The combination of Askarpour and Carter, in which the method of Askarpour is implemented on the wheel of the shopping cart of Carter, further teaches that the ferromagnetic structure is an automobile, given that the parking lot of Carter inherently includes automobiles, and automobiles are commonly known to include soft iron (i.e. “ferromagnetic structure” taught by Askarpour). In order to teach the known incorporation of soft iron into common vehicles, Honeywell is applied in combination with Askarpour and Carter.
Specifically, Honeywell teaches that vehicles include soft-iron, defined as ferrous (similar to the ferromagnetic structure taught by Askarpour) (see page 4, first paragraph under “vehicle detection signatures” section).
Since the systems of Askarpour and Honeywell are directed to the same purpose, i.e. compensating for environments with ferromagnetic structures, 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 the ferromagnetic structure of Askarpour to be provided in an automobile, in light of Honeywell, with the predictable result of maintaining an accurate heading in the face of significant soft iron magnetic disturbances during operation (¶0016 of Askarpour) in a parking lot where vehicles are known to exist (Figure 1 of Carter) and contain soft-iron that contributes to a vehicle-induced magnetic signature (second paragraph under “vehicle detection signatures” on page 4 of Honeywell).
Claim 25
Askarpour, as modified by Carter, further discloses that the magnetometer data is based at least partly on one or more ferromagnetic objects in an environment of the human-propelled cart (see ¶0006, regarding that the presence of any soft iron magnetic disturbances are detected in the magnetometer reading, as is determined when the difference between the detected changes of the magnetometer reading and gyro reading exceeds the predetermined acceptable threshold), and wherein the one or more ferromagnetic objects cause the magnetometer data to exhibit a nonlinearity (see ¶0002-0003, regarding that the effects of the local presence of soft iron provides undesirable magnetic disturbances). The “environment of the human-propelled cart” inherently includes the presence soft iron (i.e. “ferromagnetic objects”), given that the parking lot of Carter (see Figure 1) inherently includes vehicles, and vehicles are commonly known to include soft iron (i.e. “ferromagnetic structure” taught by Askarpour). In order to teach the known incorporation of soft iron into common vehicles, Honeywell is applied in combination with Askarpour and Carter.
Specifically, Honeywell teaches that vehicles include soft-iron, defined as ferrous (similar to the ferromagnetic objects of Askarpour) (see page 4, first paragraph under “vehicle detection signatures” section).
Since the systems of Askarpour and Honeywell are directed to the same purpose, i.e. compensating for environments with ferromagnetic structures, 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 the ferromagnetic objects of Askarpour to be in an environment of the human-propelled cart taught by Carter, in light of Honeywell, with the predictable result of maintaining an accurate heading in the face of significant soft iron magnetic disturbances during operation (¶0016 of Askarpour) that occurs in a parking lot where vehicles are known to exist (Figure 1 of Carter) and contain soft-iron that contributes to a vehicle-induced magnetic signature (second paragraph under “vehicle detection signatures” on page 4 of Honeywell).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Askarpour in view of Carter, and in further view of Varadan et al. (US 6,516,665 B1), hereinafter Varadan.
Claim 5
Askarpour does not specifically disclose the gyroscope comprises a microelectromechanical system (MEMS) gyroscope. However, it would be capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration to substitute gyro 104 (i.e. “gyroscope”) of Askarpour for a MEMS gyroscope, as this is a well-known type of gyroscope, and this modification does not influence the claimed steps.
Specifically, Varadan teaches the well-known concept of substituting a conventional gyroscope for a microelectromechanical system (MEMS) gyroscope (see col. 1, lines 18-38).
Since the systems of Askarpour and Varadan are directed to the same purpose, i.e. providing gyroscopes for vehicle-related systems, 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 the gyroscope of Askarpour to comprise a microelectromechanical system (MEMS) gyroscope, in light of Varadan, with the predictable result of performing the same measurements using a sensor with known advantages, such as lightweight, small size, low power consumption, and low cost (col. 1, lines 33-38 of Varadan).
Claims 13 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Askarpour in view of Carter, and in further view of Ooka (US 5,122,960), hereinafter Ooka.
Claim 13
Askarpour, as modified by Carter, further discloses that to determine the heading of the human-propelled cart, the execution of the executable instructions by the data processing hardware further causes the data processing hardware to:
determine the heading of the human-propelled cart using the magnetometer data (see ¶0016, with respect to steps 22 and 20 of Figure 1, regarding that if the difference does not exceed the acceptable threshold value, the detected magnetometer reading is used to provide the heading value).
Askarpour, as modified by Carter, does not further disclose that the execution of the executable instructions by the data processing hardware further causes the data processing hardware to:
validate the heading of the human-propelled cart using the gyroscope data.
However, it would be reasonable further perform validation of the heading determined from the magnetometer reading using the gyroscope data, since no soft iron magnetic disturbances have been identified (i.e. difference is less than the acceptable threshold in step 16 of Figure 1) in Askarpour.
Specifically, Ooka teaches a system which receives direction data from magnetic direction sensor 1 (similar to the magnetometer of Askarpour) and gyro 2 (similar to the gyroscope of Askarpour), so as to validate the magnetic direction (similar to the heading of Askarpour, as being determined from the “magnetometer data”) using angular speed output of gyro 2 (similar to the gyroscope data of Askarpour) (see col. 4, lines 3-45, with respect to Figure 2, regarding that the difference between the signal generated from magnetic direction sensor 1 and gyro 2 is used to determine whether an error has occurred in the magnetic direction; col. 1, lines 55-64).
Since the systems of Askarpour and Ooka are directed to the same purpose, i.e. comparing data from a magnetometer and gyroscope to determine errors, 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 the combination of Askarpour and Carter, so as to further validate the heading of the human-propelled cart using the gyroscope data, in light of Ooka, with the predictable result of improving a direction locator of moving bodies that can eliminate drawbacks, such as with the influence of magnetic materials on magnetic direction sensors (col. 1, lines 33-54 of Ooka).
Claim 23
Askarpour does not further disclose validating the magnetometer data using the gyroscope data. However, the technique of validating magnetometer data using gyroscope data is known and would be obvious to incorporate into the method of Askarpour, in light of Ooka.
Specifically, Ooka teaches a system which receives direction data from magnetic direction sensor 1 (similar to the magnetometer of Askarpour) and gyro 2 (similar to the gyroscope of Askarpour), so as to perform validating the magnetic direction (similar to the magnetometer data of Askarpour) using angular speed output of gyro 2 (similar to the gyroscope data of Askarpour) (see col. 4, lines 3-45, with respect to Figure 2, regarding that the difference between the signal generated from magnetic direction sensor 1 and gyro 2 is used to determine whether an error has occurred in the magnetic direction; col. 1, lines 55-64).
Since the systems of Askarpour and Ooka are directed to the same purpose, i.e. comparing data from a magnetometer and gyroscope to determine errors, 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 the combination of Askarpour and Carter, so as to further perform validating the magnetometer data using the gyroscope data, in light of Ooka, with the predictable result of improving a direction locator of moving bodies that can eliminate drawbacks, such as with the influence of magnetic materials on magnetic direction sensors (col. 1, lines 33-54 of Ooka).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Askarpour in view of Carter, and in further view of Kariatsumari et al. (US 2014/0365077 A1), hereinafter Kariatsumari.
Claim 27
Carter in combination with Askarpour does not further teach that the digital filter comprises a frequency response curve that varies with a current estimated cart speed or wheel rotation rate. However, it would be obvious to modify the “digital filter” described in ¶0067-0068 of Carter, to be adaptive to the current speed or wheel rotation rate, so as to further correct for the extraneous fluctuations in the measured magnetic field strength recognized by Carter in ¶0066, in light of Kariatsumari.
Specifically, Kariatsumari teaches that low pass filter 61 (similar to the digital filter of Carter) comprises a frequency response curve that varies with a current estimated speed (see ¶0054, with respect to Figure 6, regarding cutoff frequency changing unit 64 changes the cutoff frequency of low-pass filter 61 based on the detected vehicle speed value V detected by vehicle speed sensor 26).
Since the systems of Carter and Kariatsumari are directed to the same purpose, i.e. applying a digital filter to the output of a sensor of a mobile object to suppress the influence of vibrations during travel, 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 the digital filter of Carter to comprise a frequency response curve that varies with a current cart estimated speed, in light of Kariatsumari, with the predictable result of gradually increasing the cutoff frequency with an increase in the detected vehicle speed value, so as to suppress the increasing vibration frequency as the vehicle speed increases (¶0056 of Kariatsumari).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Specifically, Kwon et al. (US 2005/0125108 A1) teaches using a compass and gyro to determine an estimated moving direction (see ¶0042-0043, with respect to Figure 3), High et al. (US 2016/0260145 A1) teaches a shopping cart (see ¶0008) in which sensors, such as gyroscopes and compasses are installed to track movement (see ¶0105), Kao (US 5,374,933) teaches comparing a compass signal output to a gyroscope signal output to identify changes in the compass output caused by landmarks (see col. 2, lines 55-62), and Matsuzaki (US 5,319,561) teaches a heading detecting apparatus that estimates a current heading of a moving body based on output data from a turning angular velocity sensor and magnetic sensor (see abstract).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sara J Lewandroski whose telephone number is (571)270-7766. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 am-5 pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ramya P Burgess can be reached at (571)272-6011. 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.
/SARA J LEWANDROSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights