DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to preliminary amendments filed 4/18/2025.
Claim 1 has been canceled.
Claims 2-25 are new claims.
Claims 2-25 are pending.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/17/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Key to Interpreting this Office Action
For readability, all claim language has been underlined.
Citations from prior art are provided at the end of each limitation in parentheses.
Any further explanations that were deemed necessary by the Examiner are provided at the end of each claim limitation.
The Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner directly if there are any questions or concerns regarding the current Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Specifically, claim 2, from which claim 5 depends, recites the limitation of combine the magnetometer data and the gyroscope data to determine a corrected heading estimate of the human-propelled shopping cart, while claim 5 recites the limitation of determine the corrected heading estimate of the human-propelled shopping cart based only on the gyroscope data. The limitations of claim 5 broaden the scope of claim 2, thus failing to further limit claim 2.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 2, 3, 5-12, 14-22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Askarpour (US 2013/0345972 A1), hereinafter Askarpour, in view of Hannah et al. (US 2009/0002172 A1), hereinafter Hannah.
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);
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 Hannah.
Specifically, Hannah discloses a wheel (i.e. wheel 32, depicted in Figures 1 and 4) configured to attach to a human-propelled shopping cart (i.e. shopping cart 30 in Figure 1) and to monitor movement of the human-propelled shopping cart in a retail space (see ¶0075-0079, regarding that microcontroller 80 is connected to rotation sensor 92 and vibration sensor 94 for the detection of wheel rotation and wheel vibration/skid events, respectively, where additional sensors may also be included in wheel 32, such as a heading sensor that detects orientation of wheel 32 and thus the direction of travel of cart 30; ¶0054, with respect to Figure 1, regarding the common presence of shopping cart 30 in retail stores), the wheel comprising heading sensors (similar to the magnetometer and gyroscope taught by Askarpour), as described in ¶0078, and microcontroller 80 that includes memory and a processor (similar to the memory and data processing hardware taught by Askarpour), as described in ¶0072. Thus, by modifying the system of Askarpour to be implemented on the human-propelled shopping cart wheel of Hannah, 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 Hannah.
Since the systems of Askarpour and Hannah 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 Hannah, with the predictable result of applying the method of Askarpour to an applicable system (¶0026, ¶0029 of Askarpour), such as shopping carts (¶0003 of Hannah), where a detected direction of travel of the cart may be used to calculate the cart’s location (¶0078 of Hannah) using components fully contained and enclosed within the wheel, such that they cannot be seen by the user of the shopping cart and cannot easily be tampered with (¶0090 of Hannah).
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 5
Askarpour further discloses that the execution of the executable instructions by the data processing hardware further causes the data processing hardware to determine the corrected heading estimate of the human-propelled shopping cart based only on the gyroscope data (see ¶0016, with respect to steps 18 and 20 of Figure 1, regarding that a corrected heading signal that corresponds to the gyro change plus the last heading is output). The gyro data of the current iteration of the method of Figure 1 is applied to teach the limitation of “gyroscope data.” Due to the issues discussed in the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d), prior art is applied liberally to this limitation.
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 Hannah.
Specifically, Hannah discloses a system for monitoring motion of a human-propelled cart (see ¶0075-0079, with respect to Figure 4, regarding that microcontroller 80 is connected to rotation sensor 92 and vibration sensor 94 for the detection of wheel rotation and wheel vibration/skid events, respectively, where additional sensors may also be included in wheel 32, such as a heading sensor that detects orientation of wheel 32 and thus the direction of travel of cart 30, where wheel 32 is associated with shopping cart 30, as described in ¶0037-0038, with respect to Figure 1), such that a direction (similar to the heading taught by Askarpour) of the human-propelled cart is determined (see ¶0078, regarding the determination of the direction of travel of cart 30 using a heading sensor included in wheel 32). By modifying the system of Askarpour to be implemented on the human-propelled shopping cart wheel of Hannah, the step of “determine a heading” of Askarpour is of the human-propelled shopping cart taught by Hannah.
Since the systems of Askarpour and Hannah 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 Hannah, with the predictable result of applying the method of Askarpour to an applicable system (¶0026, ¶0029 of Askarpour), such as shopping carts (¶0003 of Hannah), where a detected direction of travel of the cart may be used to calculate the cart’s location (¶0078 of Hannah) using components fully contained and enclosed within the wheel, such that they cannot be seen by the user of the shopping cart and cannot easily be tampered with (¶0090 of Hannah).
Claim 7
Askarpour, as modified by Hannah, 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 Hannah, 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 Hannah, 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 Hannah, 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 Hannah 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 wheel 32 of shopping cart 30 of Hannah (see Figures 1 and 4). As described in ¶0026 of Askarpour, the method may be employed in any heading indication system, such as non-aircraft vehicles, as further described in ¶0029, and various types of sensors may be included in wheel 32 of Hannah, as described in ¶0079.
Claim 17
Hannah 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 ¶0078, regarding that the data provided by the heading sensor is used by a CCU or access point to determine the location of cart 30, which is then analyzed to decide whether to send a lock command to cart 30 via wireless communication, as described in ¶0047, with respect to Figure 1), the brake configured to inhibit rotation of a wheel of the human-propelled cart in response to an input from the communication system (see ¶0080, regarding that changing the locked state of the wheel includes controlling the state of the wheel’s braking unit 100, where the lock command is transmitted from a CCU or access point to cart 30, as described in ¶0078).
Claim 18
The combination of Askarpour and Hannah disclose the claimed computer-implemented method for monitoring movement of a human-propelled cart, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 19
Hannah further teaches determining a speed of the human-propelled cart (see ¶0075, regarding the determination of the cart’s speed from the wheel rotation events detected by the rotation sensor 92), and determining a position of the human-propelled cart using the speed of the human-propelled cart and the heading (similar to the heading taught by Askarpour) of the human-propelled cart (see ¶0078, regarding that the data collected by the rotation and heading sensors are used in combination to calculate the cart’s location).
Claim 20
Askarpour, as modified by Hannah, 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.
Claims 4 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Askarpour in view of Hannah, and in further view of Honeywell (“Application Note - AN218: Vehicle Detection Using AMR Sensors,” 2005, Honeywell International Inc.), hereinafter Honeywell.
Claim 4
Hannah further teaches that the retail space is a parking lot (see Figure 1, depicting the parking lot).
The combination of Askarpour and Hannah, in which the method of Askarpour is implemented on the wheel of the shopping cart of Hannah, further teaches that the ferromagnetic structure is an automobile, given that the parking lot of Hannah 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 Hannah.
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 Hannah) 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 Hannah, 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 Hannah (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 Hannah.
Specifically, Honeywell teaches that vehicles include soft-iron, defined as ferrous (similar to the ferromagnetic objects 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 objects of Askarpour to be in an environment of the human-propelled cart taught by Hannah, 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 Hannah) and contain soft-iron that contributes to a vehicle-induced magnetic signature (second paragraph under “vehicle detection signatures” on page 4 of Honeywell).
Claims 13 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Askarpour in view of Hannah, and in further view of Ooka (US 5,122,960), hereinafter Ooka.
Claim 13
Askarpour, as modified by Hannah, 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 Hannah, 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 taught by Askarpour) and gyro 2 (similar to the gyroscope taught by Askarpour), so as to validate the magnetic direction (similar to the heading taught by Askarpour, as being determined from the “magnetometer data”) using angular speed output of gyro 2 (similar to the gyroscope data taught by 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 Hannah, 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 taught by Askarpour) and gyro 2 (similar to the gyroscope taught by Askarpour), so as to perform validating the magnetic direction (similar to the magnetometer data taught by Askarpour) using angular speed output of gyro 2 (similar to the gyroscope data taught by 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 Hannah, 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).
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).
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