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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-13 have been examined in this application filed on or after March 16, 2013, and are being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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 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. This communication is the First Office Action on the Merits.
Key to Interpreting this Office Action
For readability, all claim language has been bolded. Citations from prior art are provided at the end of each limitation in parenthesis. Any further explanations that were deemed necessary the by 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 Objections
Claims 1-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1-2, 4-7 and 11-12 claim a plurality of steps in the form of “step 1.”, “Step 2.”, etc. This is improper claim construction at least because a single claim should only have a single period at the end in proper single-sentence form. Ending method step labels with periods appear to make the claim contain multiple sentence fragments within one claim.
Further regarding the method steps above, Applicant claims step 1-step 4 in claim 1, then claims step 31-step 33 in claim 5, referred to in claims 7. This is inconsistent numbering that may generate confusion as to the metes and bounds of the claimed steps.
Dependent claims of the objected claims above are also objected to at least due to dependency on the objected claims above.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: transmitting module and one or more receiving modules in claim 1, interpreted as an electromagnetic transmitter and a transmitting coil group and receiving coil groups, respectively, a position and orientation information acquisition module, a following mode determination module, a single-person following control module, and a multi-person following control module, in claim 8, interpreted as software-based control algorithms.
MPEP § 2181, I. A. provides a list of non-structural generic placeholders that may invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f): "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for." Welker Bearing Co., v. PHD, Inc., 550 F.3d 1090, 1096, 89 USPQ2d 1289, 1293-94 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Mass. Inst. of Tech. v. Abacus Software, 462 F.3d 1344, 1354, 80 USPQ2d 1225, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Personalized Media, 161 F.3d at 704, 48 USPQ2d at 1886–87; Mas-Hamilton Group v. LaGard, Inc., 156 F.3d 1206, 1214-1215, 48 USPQ2d 1010, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Note that there is no fixed list of generic placeholders that always result in 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation, and likewise there is no fixed list of words that always avoid 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation. Every case will turn on its own unique set of facts.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-13 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 applicant regards as the invention.
Examiner’s Note: The claims as presented are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. The following is a review of major issues of indefiniteness. However, with the large amount of indefiniteness errors in the claims this may not be a complete list. Further, once the cited errors are corrected, the corrections may very well bring up further questions of indefiniteness in the claims. Therefore, the Office recommends a complete review of the entirety of the presented claims.
In regards to claims 1 and 8: Applicant claims
step 2. determining whether the mobile robot is in a single-person following mode or a multi-person following mode based on a number of connection signals of the one or more receiving modules connected to the transmitting module; understood to require a count of the number of connected receiving modules, and a mode determination based on this count. It is noted that while multi-person following mode inherently includes multiple pedestrians, multiple receiving modules is neither claimed, nor inherently included. The metes and bounds of the claimed multi-person following mode is therefore unclear as to the number of receiving modules required. Corrective action or clarification is required.
Further in regards to claims 1 and 8: Applicant claims
step 4. finding an average value of the position and orientation information of multiple of the one or more receiving modules relative to the transmitting module and following multiple of the one or more pedestrian targets… when the mobile robot is determined to be in the multi-person following mode.
However, the terms multiple of the one or more receiving modules and multiple of the one or more pedestrian targets are contradictory in the metes and bounds of the terms because one receiving module is not multiple receiving modules. The terms are unclear and indefinite, adding to the confusion of the metes and bounds of the claimed multi-person following mode, outlined above. Corrective action or clarification is required.
Further in regards to claims 1 and 8: Applicant claims
step 3. following a single one of the one or more pedestrian targets… [and]
step 4. finding an average value of the position and orientation information of multiple of the one or more receiving modules relative to the transmitting module and following multiple of the one or more pedestrian targets
However, this appears to be missing the step of linking the tracked receiving modules to the followed pedestrians. Functionally, as best understood, the receiving modules (carried by the pedestrians) are what is/are followed by the mobile robot, not the pedestrians (only). Clarity of record is required.
Further in regards to claims 1 and 8: Applicant claims
following multiple of the one or more pedestrian targets using the linear acceleration and the angular acceleration of the mobile robot obtained by calculating using the following motion control algorithm of the mobile robot based on the average value is unclear and indefinite as to what is the controlling factor being claimed as controlling the following motion, the average value (of the position and orientation information of multiple of the one or more receiving modules) or the linear acceleration and the angular acceleration of the mobile robot.
Further, following said targets… based on linear acceleration and the angular acceleration of the mobile robot is unclear and indefinite how a mobile robot can follow multiple targets based on the own mobile robot’s linear acceleration and the angular acceleration. Further, it is unclear how the claimed following relates to the finding/found average value of position and orientation. Corrective action or clarification is required.
Further, the average value is unclear and indefinite because it is unclear if the average value is the average value of the position, the average value of orientation, or both. Corrective action or clarification is required.
In regards to claim 2: Applicant claims
obtaining a first target coordinate system (u, v, w) by rotating a second target coordinate system (x, y, z) around an x-axis, a y-axis, and a z-axis by Euler angles α, β, and γ respectively, wherein a rotation direction is counterclockwise from top to bottom in each of the x-axis, the y-axis, and the z- axis;
and
wherein
R is the Euler angle, and a rotation process is described as follows:
R = Rot(z, γ) Rot (y, β) Rot (x, α)
wherein
Rot(z, γ) is rotating around the z axis by an angle y,
Rot (y, β) is rotating around the y axis by an angle β, and
Rot (x, α) is rotating around the x axis by an angle α;
In the first instance of the claimed Euler angle (e.g. rotating a second target coordinate system… by Euler angles) Applicant uses the conventionally known and mathematically understood term Euler angle.
However, in the second instance, Applicant defines R is the Euler angle, as described in the cited equation for R. The problem is the cited equation for R appears to be a rotation matrix, not a Euler angle. While Applicant may be their own lexicographer with the term “Euler angle”, it is improper and indefinite to use the same term for two separate things. Corrective action or clarification is required.
Further in regards to claim 2: Applicant claims
R is a radius of one or more coils of the transmitting module
and
R is the Euler angle, and a rotation process is described as follows:
R = Rot(z, γ) Rot (y, β) Rot (x, α)
Applicant uses the same symbol R for two different terms, rendering the term indefinite. Corrective action or clarification is required.
All other dependent claims of the indefinite claims detailed above are also indefinite at least by virtue of depending on the indefinite claims detailed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-13 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.
Claim 1 is directed to:
1. A following method of a mobile robot based on electromagnetic positioning, comprising:
step 1. acquiring electromagnetic signals sent to one or more receiving modules located on one or more pedestrian targets by a transmitting module located on the mobile robot, and obtaining position and orientation information of the one or more receiving modules relative to the transmitting module (The claimed acquiring is understood to be generic data gathering steps that is insignificant pre-solution activity.) by calculating through an electromagnetic positioning algorithm based on the electromagnetic signals; (The claimed electromagnetic positioning algorithm is considered to be an abstract mathematical process.)
step 2. determining whether the mobile robot is in a single-person following mode or a multi-person following mode based on a number of connection signals of the one or more receiving modules connected to the transmitting module; (This is considered to be an abstract data processing step performable by one of ordinary skill mentally, or by hand.)
step 3. following a single one of the one or more pedestrian targets using a linear acceleration and an angular acceleration of the mobile robot obtained by calculating using a following motion control algorithm of the mobile robot based on the position and orientation information of the one or more receiving modules relative to the transmitting module when the mobile robot is determined to be in the single-person following mode; (as best understood, this step does not include meaningful actuation of actuators of the mobile robot based on commands to actuators, and therefore is considered merely performance of abstract mathematical calculations by a computer processor.)
and
step 4. finding an average value of the position and orientation information of multiple of the one or more receiving modules relative to the transmitting module and following multiple of the one or more pedestrian targets using the linear acceleration and the angular acceleration of the mobile robot obtained by calculating using the following motion control algorithm of the mobile robot based on the average value when the mobile robot is determined to be in the multi-person following mode. (as best understood, this step does not include meaningful actuation of actuators of the mobile robot based on commands to actuators, and therefore is considered merely performance of abstract mathematical calculations by a computer processor.)
Applying Step 1 of the Alice Analysis, the claims are understood to be directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter, and therefore we proceed to step 2A.
Applying Step 2A, Prong One of the Alice analysis, claim 1 is determined to be directed to an abstract idea (mental processes). Claim 1 is directed to a mobile robot that collects data, performs abstract mental processes and mathematical processes in order to produce data results. Claim 1 does not claim any processes that are not either purely mathematical in nature or that cannot be performed mentally by one of ordinary skill in the art, but is merely performed on a generic computer, and therefore falls within the “mental processes” and “mathematical concepts” groupings. See 84 Fed. Reg. 52. Because we conclude that claim 1 recites an abstract idea, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong Two.
Applying Step 2A, Prong Two of the Alice analysis, we determine whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception; and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application. This evaluation requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. If the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, the claim is not “directed to” the judicial exception.
Apart from the mathematical data analysis steps of the abstract idea above, the only additional element recited in claim 1 is the data acquiring step wherein a transmitting module located on the mobile robot performing the abstract process collects electromagnetic signal data to be processed, sent to from receiving modules. However, the transmitting module, the mobile robot and/or the receiving module(s) are not meaningfully affected by the abstract processes outlined above, and therefore are not practical applications. Claim 1 does not recite any limitation that even generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, the language itself of claim 1 does not reflect an improvement in any particular technical field or technology. There is also no evidence that the claimed system recites an improvement to the functioning of the “computer system” itself. See MPEP § 2106.05(a). Claim 1 also does not appear to use a judicial exception in conjunction with any particular machine. See 84 Fed. Reg. 55. Accordingly, claim 1 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception, and we proceed to Step 2B.
Applying Step 2B of the Alice analysis, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The limitations are no more than a field of use or merely involve insignificant extrasolution activity. Therefore, viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Corrective action or clarification is required.
Independent claim 8 is a following device system that is performing the method of claim 1, and is rejected the same or similar to claim 1, as detailed above.
Claim 11 is an electronic device performing the method of claim 1, and is therefore rejected the same or similar to claim 1, as detailed above.
Claim 12 is the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium performing the method of claim 1, and is therefore rejected the same or similar to claim 1, as detailed above.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-10 and 13 have been evaluated in a similar manner, and do not appear to overcome these deficiencies. Therefore dependent claims 2-7, 9-10 and 13 are rejected in the same or a similar manner as claims 1, 8, 11 and 12, outlined above.
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-4, 8 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kovtun et al. (US 20190008248 A1) herein Kovtun, in view of Baruch et al. (US 20180029706 A1) herein Baruch.
In regards to Claim 1, as best understood, Kovtun discloses the following:
1. A following method of a mobile robot based on electromagnetic positioning, (see at least [0024] “autonomous robot system”) comprising:
step 1. acquiring electromagnetic signals sent to one or more receiving modules located on one or more pedestrian targets (see at least [0026] “directional antennas 102, 104, 106, 108 detect its target by searching for the target's wireless signal transmitter, e.g., smartphone, smart watch, or electronic wrist bracelet.”) by a transmitting module located on the mobile robot, (see at least Fig. 1 and [0026] “directional antennas 102, 104, 106, 108”) and obtaining position and orientation information of the one or more receiving modules relative to the transmitting module (see at least [0031] “identifying a target, e.g., a handheld electronic device, or a targeted person. The system communicates with the electronic device or utilizing the facial recognition data in getting the target's location information, including angle and distance. The electronic device, for example, a smartphone, smart watch, wrist bracelet etc., is presumably the moving target.”) by calculating through an electromagnetic positioning algorithm based on the electromagnetic signals; (see at least [0026] “algorithms for data processing”)
step 2. determining whether the mobile robot is in a single-person following mode or a multi-person following mode based on a number of connection signals of the one or more receiving modules connected to the transmitting module; (see at least [0032] “The system searches through a list of pre-qualified target/device to establish “pairing.” For example, the system may search through a particular person's car, smart phone, smart watch and/or tablet, which may all be “pre-qualified” as a “target” that the system may follow. Once the initial pairing of the targeting device and the system is successful, the paired device is considered a trusted device, as well as the target. From this point on, the system will not pair with any other target unless it receives further command.”)
step 3. following a single one of the one or more pedestrian targets using a linear acceleration and an angular acceleration of the mobile robot obtained by calculating using a following motion control algorithm of the mobile robot based on the position and orientation information of the one or more receiving modules relative to the transmitting module when the mobile robot is determined to be in the single-person following mode; (see at least [0031] “decision making module, whereas the “decision” is the result of a sequential process by the system's “working components” (pipelines). In some embodiments, the decision making process may include receiving data pertaining to the system engine, e.g., from the odometer, and setting the primary moving speed and angle of the system. The stages of the decision making may include identifying a target, e.g., a handheld electronic device, or a targeted person. The system communicates with the electronic device or utilizing the facial recognition data in getting the target's location information, including angle and distance. The electronic device, for example, a smartphone, smart watch, wrist bracelet etc., is presumably the moving target. The system also calculates the target's speed, and corrects its angle of rotation based on the target's position and sets its moving direction.”, see also Fig. 7 and [0043] “autonomous robot system following a moving target, (“Follow Me Process”)”)
and
As best understood, Kovtun is silent, but Baruch teaches the following:
step 4. finding an average value of the position and orientation information of multiple of the one or more receiving modules relative to the transmitting module and following multiple of the one or more pedestrian targets (see at least [0022] “A UAV… may determine a monitoring position relative to a user and perhaps additional people traveling with the user.”, [0042] “If there are additional people traveling with the user 202, the UAV 100 may also determine one or more attributes of additional people as well. The UAV 100 may average the attributes of all of the detected persons to determine the monitoring position”)
using the linear acceleration and the angular acceleration of the mobile robot obtained by calculating using the following motion control algorithm of the mobile robot (see at least [0090] “The UAV 100 may be of a helicopter design that utilizes one or more rotors 724 driven by corresponding motors 722 to provide lift-off (or take-off) as well as other aerial movements (e.g., forward progression, ascension, descending, lateral movements, tilting, rotating, etc.)”)
based on the average value (see at least [0042] “The UAV 100 may average the attributes of all of the detected persons to determine the monitoring position”)
when the mobile robot is determined to be in the multi-person following mode. (see at least [0041] “The attributes may include one or more of the current position of the user 202, the current velocity (i.e., speed and direction) of the user 202, the height of the user 202, the size of the user 202 (or size of user along with addition people accompanying the user 202)”, [0058] “The UAV may determine the monitoring position from various attributes of the user (e.g., position, velocity, height)”, [0059] “the processor(s) may monitor an area surrounding the user for objects. The processor may first estimate a travel path for the user based on the user's position, velocity,”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Baruch with the invention of Kovtun, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of allowing the robot to be able to monitor for dangers for the entire group of people. (Baruch, [0068])
In regards to Claim 3, as best understood, Kovtun discloses the following”
3. The method according to claim 1, wherein the electromagnetic positioning algorithm comprises an optimization algorithm, (optional) an analytical method, (see at least [0026] “data-processing algorithms”, [0031] “decision making module”, and [0033] “calibration process”) or a wireless tracking algorithm based on a neural network. (optional)
Independent claim 8 is a following device system that is performing the method of claim 1, and is rejected the same or similar to claim 1, as detailed above.
Claim 10 is the following device performing the method of claim 3, and is therefore rejected the same or similar to claim 3, as detailed above.
Claim 11 is an electronic device performing the method of claim 1, and are therefore rejected the same or similar to claim 1, as detailed above.
Claim 12 is the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium performing the method of claim 1, and are therefore rejected the same or similar to claim 1, as detailed above.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kovtun in view of Baruch, as applied, in further view of Nei et al. (WO2020187275A1) herein Nei.
In regards to Claim 2, as best understood, Kovtun is silent, but Nei teaches the following:
2. The method according to claim 1, wherein:
the step 1 comprises: defining a center of the transmitting module as an origin of a coordinate system of the transmitting module, (see at least [0063])
obtaining three orthogonal magnetic induction intensity components (Bx, By, Bz) by measuring through the one or more receiving modules, (see at least [0055]-[0056], [0063] and [0066])
wherein a coordinate system of the one or more receiving modules is parallel to three coordinate axes of the coordinate system of the transmitting module, (see at least [0066] and [0071])
and obtaining a first target coordinate system (u, v, w) by rotating a second target coordinate system (x, y, z) around an x-axis, a y-axis, and a z-axis by Euler angles α, β, and γ respectively, wherein a rotation direction is counterclockwise from top to bottom in each of the x-axis, the y-axis, and the z-axis; (see at least [0071] and [0075]-[0077])
obtaining the three orthogonal magnetic induction intensity components (Bx, By, Bz) by calculating based on a magnetic dipole model:
PNG
media_image1.png
216
562
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein BT is a constant, BT =pIR2/4,p is a magnetic permeability of air, I is magnitude of current, R is a radius of one or more coils of the transmitting module, (in, n, p) are unit direction vectors of the transmitting module, μIR2/4, μ is a magnetic permeability of air, I is magnitude of current, R is a radius of one or more coils of the transmitting module, (m, n, p) are unit direction vectors of the transmitting module, m2+n2+p2=1, r is a distance from the one or more receiving modules to the transmitting module, (see at least [0067]-[0070])
and
PNG
media_image2.png
68
240
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(see at least [0065])
obtaining magnetic induction intensity components (BU, BV,BW) induced by the one or more receiving modules in the first target coordinate system (u, v, w) based on the three orthogonal magnetic induction intensity components (Bx, By,Bz) by calculating:
PNG
media_image3.png
80
436
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein R is the Euler angle, (see at least [0057], [0063-[0065])
and a rotation process is described as follows:
PNG
media_image4.png
58
466
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(see at least [0074])
wherein Rot(z, y) is rotating around the z axis by an angle y, Rot(y, β) is rotating around the y axis by an angle β, and Rot(x, α) is rotating around the x axis by an angle α; (see at least [0075]-[0077])
and obtaining the position and orientation information of the one or more receiving modules relative to the transmitting module through the electromagnetic positioning algorithm by calculating based on the magnetic induction intensity components (Bu, By, Bw) (see at least [0078]-[0079]) induced by the one or more receiving modules in the first target coordinate system (u, v, w). (see at least [0059]-[0061] and [0079]-[0080])
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have included the features of Nei with the invention of Kovtun, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving road traffic safety by relying on information and intelligent technologies to safeguard traffic safety, and prevent traffic accidents from occurring. (Nei, [0004]-[0005])
Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kovtun in view of Baruch, as applied, in further view of Gong et al. (CN 112132865 A) herein Gong.
In regards to Claim 4, as best understood, Kovtun in view of Baruch discloses or makes obvious single-person following mode and multi-person following mode, as detailed in claim 1 above. Kovtun is silent, but Gong teaches the following:
4. The method according to claim 1, wherein the step 2 comprises:
determining whether the mobile robot is in the single-person following mode or the multi-person following mode by checking the number of the connection signals of the one or more receiving modules connected to the transmitting module; (see at least [0033] “number of people”) when the number of the connection signals is 1, determining that the mobile robot is in the single-person following mode and executing the step 3; (see at least [0033] “number of people”) and when the number of the connection signals is greater than 1, determining that the mobile robot is in the multi-person following mode, and executing the step 4. (see at least [0033] “number of people”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have included the features of Gong with the invention of Kovtun, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of minimizing reconstruction error between tracked targets and candidate targets due to background information, or when the appearance of the target changes drastically or is occluded, which may cause the robot to drift or be lost. (Gong, [0004])
Claims 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kovtun in view of Baruch, as applied, in further view of Anderson (US 20060106292) herein Anderson.
In regards to Claim 9, as best understood, Kovtun is silent, but Anderson teaches the following:
9. The following device of the mobile robot based on the electromagnetic positioning according to claim 8, wherein: the transmitting module adopts a single-axis to multi-axis coil mode, (see at least [0013] “Single-coil EM tracker” and the one or more receiving modules adopt a corresponding multi-axis to single-axis coil mode. (see at least [0016] “multichannel single-coil EM tracker can track two or three single coils simultaneously.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have included the features of Anderson with the invention of Kovtun, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of increasing precision in highly accurate tracking technology found in navigation systems. (Anderson, [0009])
Claim 13 is the following device performing the method of claim 3, and is therefore rejected the same or similar to claim 3, as detailed above.
Allowable Subject Matter
As best understood, claims 5-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable in view of the prior art if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Applicant is reminded that this is in view of the available prior art only, and is based on the interpretations of claims 1 and 5-7, as best understood only. This determination in no way diminishes the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections outlined above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jason Roberson, whose telephone number is (571) 272-7793. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday thru Friday between 8:00 AM and 4:30 PM. The examiner may also be reached through e-mail at Jason.Roberson@USPTO.GOV, or via FAX at (571) 273-7793. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571)-272-7691.
Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patient Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the PAIR system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll free).
Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule either an in-person or a telephone interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
Sincerely,
/JASON R ROBERSON/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
July 24, 2026
/TODD MELTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights