DETAILED ACTION
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 3 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.
It is unclear in claim 3 what is considered suitability criteria.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-9, 12-14, 17-21 and 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Frish (U.S. Publication No. 20230070440). Frish teaches a method for building a magnetic map of an indoor area (Fig.5; par. [0105]), wherein the area comprises a plurality of positions and wherein the magnetic map comprises Earth's magnetic field values for the positions (par. [0105]: "fingerprint map"; "map with associated magnetic sensor measurements''), the method comprising: a) building an initial magnetic map of the area by traversing the area with at least one platform having an associated magnetometer and obtaining Earth's magnetic field measurements with the magnetometer at determined positions and orientations of the at least one platform within the area, wherein the initial magnetic map is built based at least in part on an initial calibration of the magnetometer (Fig. 5: 502, 504; par. [0 105]); b) identifying at least one recalibration condition for the area based at least in part on orientations and positions of the at least one platform (Fig.5: 506, 508; par. [0106], [0107]: the recalibration condition being that two magnetic sensor measurements belong to different sets (different orientations) but have substantially the same location. See Fig.4:P12, P23, P14a, P14b and par.[0092]); c) recalibrating the magnetometer based at least in part on the Earth's magnetic field measurements obtained for each recalibration condition, wherein biases for the magnetometer are updated (Fig.5:510; par. [0108]); and d) generating a rebuilt magnetic map for the area using the updated biases for the magnetometer (Fig.5:512; par. [0108]; par. [0096]; par. [0099]: "subtracting Ll from the magnetic sensor measurements'').
Regarding claims 13 and 19, Frish teaches a system for building a magnetic map of an indoor area (Figs.4-5; par. [0105]), wherein the area comprises a plurality of positions and wherein the magnetic map comprises Earth's magnetic field values for the positions (par. [0105]: "fingerprint map"; "map with associated magnetic sensor measurements''), the system comprising: a) at least one platform having an associated magnetometer for traversing the area to obtain Earth's magnetic field measurements at determined positions and orientations of the at least one platform within the area; b) remote processing resources (fig. 1) configured to: i) build an initial magnetic map of the area, wherein the initial magnetic map is built based at least in part on an initial calibration of the magnetometer (Fig. 5: 502, 504; par. [0 105]); ii) identify at least one recalibration condition for the area based at least in part on orientations and positions of the at least one platform (See Fig.4:P12, P23, P14a, P14b and par. [0092]); iii) recalibrate the magnetometer based at least in part on the Earth's magnetic field measurements obtained for each recalibration condition, wherein biases for the magnetometer are updated (Fig.5:510; par. [0108]); and iv) generate a rebuilt magnetic map for the area using the updated biases for the magnetometer. (Fig.5:512; par. [0108]; par. [0096]; par. [0099]: "subtracting Ll from the magnetic sensor measurements'').
Regarding claims 2, see par. [0104-111]: the process of Fig.5 can be performed in "real time". Recalibrating the magnetometer based at least in part on the Earth's magnetic field measurements obtained for the recalibration conditions is provided iteratively by updating the biases at a current iteration using magnetic field map updated at a previous iteration s508 for recalibration conditions and updating the magnetic field map for recalibration conditions using the magnetometer biases updated at current iteration s512.
Regarding claim 3, the identifying criteria is the calibration error data.
Regarding claims 4 and 21, traversing the area with at least one additional platform having an associated magnetometer (mobile devices) and obtaining Earth's magnetic field measurements with the magnetometer at positions and orientations of the at least one additional platform within the area, wherein the initial magnetic map is built based at least in part on an initial calibration of the magnetometers of the platforms and wherein the recalibration is performed for the magnetometers of each platform and wherein the rebuilt magnetic map is generated using the updated biases for the magnetometers of each platform. (See para 104, “The process includes an algorithm for equalizing magnetic sensor calibration errors in magnetic sensor measurements collected by a mobile device or mobile devices”).
Regarding claim 5, identifying the at least one recalibration condition comprises determining a threshold distance for positions of the at least one platform at which Earth's magnetic field measurements were obtained. See para 91, “the distance between the two locations is within a given amount”.
Regarding claims 7-8, para 103 teaches “….] weighted by a configurable association error that may be a function of the sensor quality or error of the association of a particular magnetic sensor measurement with a particular location.”
Regarding claims 9, 14 and 20, Fig. 4 depicts creating a first path for traversing the area by the at least one platform. See M1, M2, M3 and the corresponding description.
Regarding claims 12, 17 and 23, Fig. 5: 506 and 508 make clear that the calibration is performed after the collection of the magnetic sensor measurements.
Regarding claims 18 and 24, figs. 1 and 3 as well as paras 51, 58, 66, 71 teach that the determined positions and orientations of the at least one platform within the area are determined at least in part by the remote processing resources.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frish (U.S. Publication No. 20230070440). Frish teaches the salient features of the claimed invention except for identifying the at least one recalibration condition comprises determining a threshold angular deviation in orientations of the at least one platform at which the Earth's magnetic field measurements were obtained at positions within the threshold distance. See para 83 of Frish which teaches determining should be (“within a similarity threshold between orientation estimates”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to determining a threshold angular deviation in orientations of the at least one platform for the purpose of grouping to different partitioned sets.
Claim(s) 10-11, 15-16 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frish (U.S. Publication No. 20230070440). Frish teaches the salient features of the claimed invention except for creating at least one additional path for traversing the area by the at least one platform based at least in part on a number of identified recalibration conditions for the area meeting criteria based at least in part on orientation and position of the at least one platform after traversing the first path. Para 104 already teaches that additional data of the new path would be used to update the biases and the fingerprint map. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize the features of creating at least one additional path for traversing the area by the at least one platform based at least in part on a number of identified recalibration conditions for the area meeting criteria based at least in part on orientation and position of the at least one platform after traversing the first path for the purpose of improving the map. Creating another additional path for traversing the area by the at least one platform based at least in part on a number of identified recalibration conditions for the area meeting criteria based at least in part on orientation and position of the at least one platform is just a duplication of steps already performed. The applicant should note that it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involve only routine skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). By analogy, duplication of step should be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Berkovitch (U.S. Patent No. 11536571) teaches magnetic map information with magnetic based positioning updates.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER E MAHONEY whose telephone number is (571)272-2122. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, Stephanie Bloss can be reached at 571-272-3555. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER E MAHONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights