DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the first magnetic field " in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if it is referring to the first magnetic field of the virtual marker in lines 13-14 or another first magnetic field. If it is referring to the first magnetic field of the virtual marker in lines 13-14, then it is recommended to amend to recite “the first magnetic field of the virtual marker”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the second magnetic field " in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if it is referring to the second magnetic field corresponding to the location of the electronic device in lines 14-15 or another second magnetic field. If it is referring to the second magnetic field corresponding to the location of the electronic device in lines 14-15, then it is recommended to amend to recite “the second magnetic field corresponding to the location of the electronic device”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the first magnetic field " in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if it is referring to the first magnetic field of the virtual marker in lines 8-9 or another first magnetic field. If it is referring to the first magnetic field of the virtual marker in lines 8-9, then it is recommended to amend to recite “the first magnetic field of the virtual marker”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the second magnetic field " in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if it is referring to the second magnetic field corresponding to the location of the electronic device in lines 9-10 or another second magnetic field. If it is referring to the second magnetic field corresponding to the location of the electronic device in lines 9-10, then it is recommended to amend to recite “the second magnetic field corresponding to the location of the electronic device”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the first magnetic field " in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if it is referring to the first magnetic field of the virtual marker in lines 10-11 or another first magnetic field. If it is referring to the first magnetic field of the virtual marker in lines 10-11, then it is recommended to amend to recite “the first magnetic field of the virtual marker”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the second magnetic field " in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if it is referring to the second magnetic field corresponding to the location of the electronic device in lines 11-12 or another second magnetic field. If it is referring to the second magnetic field corresponding to the location of the electronic device in lines 11-12, then it is recommended to amend to recite “the second magnetic field corresponding to the location of the electronic device”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-9 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph for being dependent on claim 1.
Claims 11-17 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph for being dependent on claim 10.
Claims 19-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph for being dependent on claim 18.
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, the recites an electronic device comprising:
a sensor;
memory storing instructions; and
at least one processor operatively connected to the sensor,
wherein the instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to:
obtain information about a first magnetic field of a virtual marker through the sensor;
configure a reference distance, based on the information about the first magnetic field of the virtual marker;
obtain information about a second magnetic field corresponding to a location of the electronic device, based on a specified detection time interval;
detect a Euclidean distance, based on the information about the first magnetic field of the virtual marker and the information about the second magnetic field corresponding to the location of the electronic device;
restrict an operation of comparing the information about the first magnetic field and the information about the second magnetic field in a state in which the Euclidean distance does not satisfy a specified detection condition based on the reference distance; and
perform the operation of comparing the information about the first magnetic field and the information about the second magnetic field in a state in which the Euclidean distance satisfies the specified detection condition based on the reference distance.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a method; therefore, it is a process
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim recites the limitation of configure a reference distance, based on the information about the first magnetic field of the virtual marker. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, configuring a reference distance can be done by a human with pen and paper.
The claim recites the limitation of detect a Euclidean distance, based on the information about the first magnetic field of the virtual marker and the information about the second magnetic field corresponding to the location of the electronic device. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, detecting a Euclidean distance can be done by a human with pen and paper.
The claim recites the limitation of restrict an operation of comparing the information about the first magnetic field and the information about the second magnetic field in a state in which the Euclidean distance does not satisfy a specified detection condition based on the reference distance. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, restricting an operation of comparing the information based on a satisfied condition can be done by a human with pen and paper.
The claim recites the limitation of perform the operation of comparing the information about the first magnetic field and the information about the second magnetic field in a state in which the Euclidean distance satisfies the specified detection condition based on the reference distance. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, perform the operation of comparing the information can be done by a human with pen and paper.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.
the following additional elements merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the abstract idea, or merely includes instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea: an electronic device comprising: a sensor;
memory storing instructions; and at least one processor operatively connected to the sensor, wherein the instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to:
the following additional elements merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea: obtain information about a first magnetic field of a virtual marker through the sensor; obtain information about a second magnetic field corresponding to a location of the electronic device, based on a specified detection time interval;
These additional elements have been recognized by the courts as being well-understood, routine, conventional activity:
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log)
The following references establish the conventionality of the limitation “obtain information about a first magnetic field of a virtual marker through the sensor; obtain information about a second magnetic field corresponding to a location of the electronic device, based on a specified detection time interval”
US 11579210 B1 “Magnetic sensor offset detection” (Jordan) teaches “obtain information about a first magnetic field of a virtual marker through the sensor; obtain information about a second magnetic field corresponding to a location of the electronic device, based on a specified detection time interval”. See col.5 lines 23-35.
US 20170184402 A1 “MAGNETIC FIELD BASED LOCATION DETERMINATION” (Suzuki; Motoya) teaches “obtain information about a first magnetic field of a virtual marker through the sensor; obtain information about a second magnetic field corresponding to a location of the electronic device, based on a specified detection time interval”. See par.19-39.
The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of location detection in a computer environment. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform a location detection process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of location detection in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 2 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 2 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to obtain information about a magnetic field in three axes related to at least a portion of a real space configured as the virtual marker through the sensor.”, which is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 2 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because this limitation(s) is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 3 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 3 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to: detect a range of the first magnetic field and a slope of the first magnetic field; and select one of a plurality of specified reference distances having different distances, based on the range of the first magnetic field and the slope of the first magnetic field.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 3 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 4 depends on claim 3, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 4 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to: detect a change rate of the slope of the first magnetic field, based on the range of the first magnetic field and the slope of the first magnetic field; select a shortest reference distance among the plurality of reference distances in a state in which the change rate of the slope of the first magnetic field satisfies a specified linear condition; and select a longest reference distance among the plurality of reference distances in a state in which the change rate of the slope of the first magnetic field does not satisfy the specified linear condition.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 4 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 5 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 5 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to detect the Euclidean distance between the virtual marker and the location of the electronic device, based on a difference in strength between a magnetic field in each of three axes related to the virtual marker and a magnetic field in each of the three axes corresponding to the location of the electronic device.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 5 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 6 depends on claim 5, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 6 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to: restrict the operation of comparing the information about the first magnetic field and the information about the second magnetic field in a state in which the Euclidean distance exceeds the reference distance; and perform the operation comparing the information about the first magnetic field and the information about the second magnetic field in a state in which the Euclidean distance is less than or equal to the reference distance.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 6 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 7 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 7 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the memory is further configured to store information related to at least one of a location of a real space configured as the virtual marker, the information about the first magnetic field obtained through the sensor, or a function related to the virtual marker.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 7 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 8 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 8 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the memory storing instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to automatically execute a function related to the virtual marker stored in the at least one memory based on determining that the electronic device reaches the virtual marker through the operation of comparing.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 8 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 9 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 9 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the operation of comparing the information about the first magnetic field and the information about the second magnetic field includes at least one of a dynamic time warping (DTW) operation, a correlation operation, a histogram operation, a range operation, an angle operation, or a bias operation.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 9 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites An operating method of an electronic device, the method comprising: obtaining information about a first magnetic field of a virtual marker through a sensor of the electronic device; configuring a reference distance, based on the information about the first magnetic field of the virtual marker; obtaining information about a second magnetic field corresponding to a location of the electronic device, based on a specified detection time interval; detecting a Euclidean distance, based on the information about the first magnetic field of the virtual marker and the information about the second magnetic field corresponding to the location of the electronic device; restricting an operation of comparing the information about the first magnetic field and the information about the second magnetic field in a state in which the Euclidean distance does not satisfy a specified detection condition based on the reference distance; and performing the operation of comparing the information about the first magnetic field and the information about the second magnetic field in a state in which the Euclidean distance satisfies the specified detection condition based on the reference distance.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a device; therefore, it is a machine
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim recites the limitation of configuring a reference distance, based on the information about the first magnetic field of the virtual marker. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, configuring a reference distance can be done by a human with pen and paper.
The claim recites the limitation of detecting a Euclidean distance, based on the information about the first magnetic field of the virtual marker and the information about the second magnetic field corresponding to the location of the electronic device. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, detecting a Euclidean distance can be done by a human with pen and paper.
The claim recites the limitation of restricting an operation of comparing the information about the first magnetic field and the information about the second magnetic field in a state in which the Euclidean distance does not satisfy a specified detection condition based on the reference distance. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, restricting an operation of comparing the information based on a satisfied condition can be done by a human with pen and paper.
The claim recites the limitation of performing the operation of comparing the information about the first magnetic field and the information about the second magnetic field in a state in which the Euclidean distance satisfies the specified detection condition based on the reference distance. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, perform the operation of comparing the information can be done by a human with pen and paper.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.
the following additional elements merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the abstract idea, or merely includes instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea: an electronic device
the following additional elements merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea: obtain information about a first magnetic field of a virtual marker through the sensor; obtain information about a second magnetic field corresponding to a location of the electronic device, based on a specified detection time interval;
These additional elements have been recognized by the courts as being well-understood, routine, conventional activity:
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log)
The following references establish the conventionality of the limitation “obtain information about a first magnetic field of a virtual marker through the sensor; obtain information about a second magnetic field corresponding to a location of the electronic device, based on a specified detection time interval”
US 11579210 B1 “Magnetic sensor offset detection” (Jordan) teaches “obtain information about a first magnetic field of a virtual marker through the sensor; obtain information about a second magnetic field corresponding to a location of the electronic device, based on a specified detection time interval”. See col.5 lines 23-35.
US 20170184402 A1 “MAGNETIC FIELD BASED LOCATION DETERMINATION” (Suzuki; Motoya) teaches “obtain information about a first magnetic field of a virtual marker through the sensor; obtain information about a second magnetic field corresponding to a location of the electronic device, based on a specified detection time interval”. See par.19-39.
The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of location detection in a computer environment. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform a location detection process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of location detection in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 11 depends on claim 10, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 11 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the configuring the reference distance comprises:4 detecting a range of the first magnetic field and a slope of the first magnetic field; and selecting one of a plurality of specified reference distances having different distances, based on the range of the first magnetic field and the slope of the first magnetic field.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 11 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 12 depends on claim 11, which depends on claim 10 therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 12 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the selecting the reference distance comprises: detecting a change rate of the slope of the first magnetic field, based on the range of the first magnetic field and the slope of the first magnetic field; selecting a shortest reference distance among the plurality of reference distances in a state in which the change rate of the slope of the first magnetic field satisfies a specified linear condition; and selecting a longest reference distance among the plurality of reference distances in a state in which the change rate of the slope of the first magnetic field does not satisfy the specified linear condition.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 12 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 13 depends on claim 10, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 13 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the detecting the Euclidean distance comprises detecting the Euclidean distance between the virtual marker and the location of the electronic device, based on a difference in strength between a magnetic field in each of three axes related to the virtual marker and a magnetic field in each of the three axes corresponding to the location of the electronic device.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 13 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 14 depends on claim 10, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 14 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the restricting the operation of comparing comprises restricting the operation of comparing the information about the first magnetic field and the information about the second magnetic field in a state in which the Euclidean distance exceeds the reference distance.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 14 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 15 depends on claim 10, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 15 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the performing the operation of comparing comprises performing the operation of comparing the information about the first magnetic field and the information about the second magnetic field in a state in which the Euclidean distance is less than or equal to the reference distance.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 15 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 16 depends on claim 10, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 16 is further recites the element(s) “… further comprising automatically executing a function related to the virtual marker based on determining that the electronic device reaches the virtual marker through the operation of comparing.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 16 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 17 depends on claim 10, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 17 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the operation of comparing the information about the first magnetic field and the information about the second magnetic field includes at least one of a dynamic time warping (DTW)operation, a correlation operation, a histogram operation, a range operation, an angle operation, or a bias operation.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 17 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Regarding claim 18, the claim recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for storing one or more programs comprising computer-executable instructions that, when individually or collectively executed by at least one processor of an electronic device, cause the electronic device to: obtain information about a first magnetic field of a virtual marker through the sensor; configure a reference distance, based on the information about the first magnetic field of the virtual marker; obtain information about a second magnetic field corresponding to a location of the electronic device, based on a specified detection time interval;6 detect a Euclidean distance, based on the information about the first magnetic field of the virtual marker and the information about the second magnetic field corresponding to the location of the electronic device; restrict an operation of comparing the information about the first magnetic field and the information about the second magnetic field in a state in which the Euclidean distance does not satisfy a specified detection condition based on the reference distance; and perform the operation of comparing the information about the first magnetic field and the information about the second magnetic field in a state in which the Euclidean distance satisfies the specified detection condition based on the reference distance.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites executable instructions; therefore, it is a process
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim recites the limitation of configure a reference distance, based on the information about the first magnetic field of the virtual marker. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, configuring a reference distance can be done by a human with pen and paper.
The claim recites the limitation of detect a Euclidean distance, based on the information about the first magnetic field of the virtual marker and the information about the second magnetic field corresponding to the location of the electronic device. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, detecting a Euclidean distance can be done by a human with pen and paper.
The claim recites the limitation of restrict an operation of comparing the information about the first magnetic field and the information about the second magnetic field in a state in which the Euclidean distance does not satisfy a specified detection condition based on the reference distance. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, restricting an operation of comparing the information based on a satisfied condition can be done by a human with pen and paper.
The claim recites the limitation of perform the operation of comparing the information about the first magnetic field and the information about the second magnetic field in a state in which the Euclidean distance satisfies the specified detection condition based on the reference distance. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, perform the operation of comparing the information can be done by a human with pen and paper.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.
the following additional elements merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the abstract idea, or merely includes instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea: non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for storing one or more programs comprising computer-executable instructions that, when individually or collectively executed by at least one processor of an electronic device, cause the electronic device to:
the following additional elements merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea: obtain information about a first magnetic field of a virtual marker through the sensor; obtain information about a second magnetic field corresponding to a location of the electronic device, based on a specified detection time interval;
These additional elements have been recognized by the courts as being well-understood, routine, conventional activity:
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log)
The following references establish the conventionality of the limitation “obtain information about a first magnetic field of a virtual marker through the sensor; obtain information about a second magnetic field corresponding to a location of the electronic device, based on a specified detection time interval”
US 11579210 B1 “Magnetic sensor offset detection” (Jordan) teaches “obtain information about a first magnetic field of a virtual marker through the sensor; obtain information about a second magnetic field corresponding to a location of the electronic device, based on a specified detection time interval”. See col.5 lines 23-35.
US 20170184402 A1 “MAGNETIC FIELD BASED LOCATION DETERMINATION” (Suzuki; Motoya) teaches “obtain information about a first magnetic field of a virtual marker through the sensor; obtain information about a second magnetic field corresponding to a location of the electronic device, based on a specified detection time interval”. See par.19-39.
The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of location detection in a computer environment. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform a location detection process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of location detection in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 19 depends on claim 18, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 19 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the one or more programs comprising computer-executable instructions that, when individually or collectively executed by at least one processor of an electronic device, cause the electronic device to: detect a range of the first magnetic field and a slope of the first magnetic field; and select one of a plurality of specified reference distances having different distances, based on the range of the first magnetic field and the slope of the first magnetic field.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 19 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 20 depends on claim 19, which depends on claim 18, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 20 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the oneor more programs comprising computer-executable instructions that, when individually or collectively executed by at least one processor of an electronic device, cause the electronic device to: detect a change rate of the slope of the first magnetic field, based on the range of the first magnetic field and the slope of the first magnetic field; select a shortest reference distance among the plurality of reference distances in a state in which the change rate of the slope of the first magnetic field satisfies a specified linear condition; and select a longest reference distance among the plurality of reference distances in a state in which the change rate of the slope of the first magnetic field does not satisfy the specified linear condition.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 20 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US 20170184402 A1; Suzuki; Motoya is a method for magnetic field based location determination.
US 11579210 B1; Jordan; Ian is an embodiment for Magnetic sensor offset detection.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARL F.R. TCHATCHOUANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3991. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am -5:00am.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at 571-272-7924. 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.
/CARL F.R. TCHATCHOUANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/HUY Q PHAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights