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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/12/2026 regarding the 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claims do not recite a mental process and that accessing, approximately aligning, calculating a difference, determining a similarity, and performing navigation or localization are not mere “observations, evaluations, judgments, [or] opinions,” and the human mind is not equipped to perform them.”” Examiner acknowledges applicant’s argument but respectfully disagrees.
Although it may be a slow and cumbersome task, the human mind is most definitely capable of these tasks with a simple computational device or even without one. One can measure magnetic fields with appropriate elements and assess, evaluate, or judge those values accordingly. One can plot the collected magnetic field data and visually compare plots of various sets of data. One can easily calculate differences from either the raw data or from the plotted data. One can make a mental determination that the data sets are similar or not, again by looking at raw or plotted data sets. One can perform navigation or localization based on the gathered data. Again, this may be slow if done completely by hand, but it can be done using simple tools that do not amount to more than the judicial exception.
Examiner also notes that the 101 rejection was not based on a mental process, but rather mathematical concept. All of the steps in the independent claims 1, 11, 21, & 30 are mathematical and computational functions as presented in the specification applicant. Specifically, spline interpolation, differences as disclosed as subtractions, comparisons of data, etc. Examiner did not argue that the claims presented mental processes, but rather that they are directed to mathematical concepts without significantly more. They therefore present an abstract idea. That these method steps can be performed by a human alone or with a simple programed computer is not relevant to the rejection made. For these reasons, the 101 rejection stands.
Applicant argues that “the claims as a whole integrate that exception into a practical application.” Applicant argues that “the claims recite a specific, practical application of the recited process: performing navigation or localization based on the determined similarity.” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner notes that it is not clear from the claim language what exactly the specific practical application is nor how it is performed. Navigation and localization are general fields of use wherein navigation and/or localization are tasks that have been performed by humans for many thousands of years with mere observation of natural elements such as positions of stars in the sky or phenomenon such as magnetism with a simple tool such as a compass. Therefore, even though applicant states that “the claims as a whole integrate that exception into a practical application,” it still does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitation “by the electronic device, performing navigation or localization based on the determined similarity” is a generically recited post solution activity and/or general field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)) that generically links the abstract idea of mathematical concepts to a technological environment.” The act of navigation or localization being performed based on mathematical calculations with a computer is the use of mathematics in navigation using a computer. Therefore, "by an electronic device" fails to integrate into a practical application or amount to significantly more because this limitation is a generically recited computer element and does not add meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because it amounts to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Applicant also argues that the “the claims as a whole provide an improvement to technology or a technical field” and that “the claimed invention provides a technological solution to the technological problem of authenticating, navigating, or localizing a device using magnetic recordings.” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
All of the cited steps are still directed toward mathematical concepts which represent abstract ideas. Examiner notes that it is not clear from the claim language what exactly the specific practical application is nor how it is performed. Examiner also notes that “a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp.” does not amount to "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception. See MPEP Section 2106.05 I A. In the independent claims, the “electronic device” is, as written, a generic tool such as a simple computer. Using a computer or “electronic device” to make mathematical calculations in an abstract mathematical concept is not enough to overcome the mathematical concept abstract idea. Even though the applicant has a specific ordered combination of steps, these steps are still mathematical calculations. It is also not abundantly clear what the specific improvement is or exactly how navigation and localization are made better other than the calculations are made on an “electronic device.” For these reasons, the 101 rejection stands.
Applicant states that the “the examiner should consider "whether the technological limitations are being used as a tool to improve the recited judicial exception (e.g., automating a manual business process) or whether the claim as a whole provides an improvement to technology or a technical field” as explained by the Kim memorandum. Examiner notes that the Kim memorandum addresses “software-related arts, including Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning.” Examiner also notes that this memorandum provides guidance to the rules within the MPEP and do not supersede the MPEP.
Therefore, the 101 rejections will be maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that “the combination of Kaub and Huang is not proper under 35 U.S.C. § 103” because “Kaub and Huang are directed to fundamentally different technical problems.” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Kaub addresses, in the title, magnetic surveys made using unmanned aircraft which would indicate localization and navigation methods and practices. Huang specifically addresses localization in its title.
Applicant argues that “the combination of Kaub and Huang is not proper under 35 U.S.C. § 103” because “Kaub and Huang are directed to fundamentally different technical problems.”
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues that “Examiner's stated motivation for combining these references-that performing navigation or localization based on the determined similarity is “a common, well- know, use of the data gathered and analyzed” -is conclusory and does not provide a specific, reasoned explanation grounded in the prior art for why a person of ordinary skill would combine these references.” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The independent claim requires performing navigation or localization based on the determined similarity using the electronic device. The plain meaning of the claim language requires one to navigate using information that one makes a determination about using a computational device. This set of claim limitations is broad in scope and it is well-known that people navigate using determinations using all types of information. Using a computer to make a determination and then navigate or localize based on that information would be what one considers normal, common knowledge means of performing the listed tasks. In the modern world, electronic devices are ubiquitously used for such mathematical functions. Therefore, Examiner maintains the 103 rejection below.
Applicant argues that “Kaub would still fail to disclose, teach, or suggest calculating a difference between those versions of the magnetic signal as aligned with each other or determining a similarity between those versions of the magnetic signal based on the difference, as the claims further recite.” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims as written are incredibly broad such that, using the broadest reasonable interpretation, the art can and will be applicable. Assessing magnetic values, aligning first and second magnetic values, calculating a difference, determining a difference and navigation are all method steps that can be performed by a person looking at the plots presented in Kaub. One can look at plots to make comparisons and determine differences. Further, when the plots are aligned, the data is also aligned. Therefore, in the broadest reasonable interpretation, all of the listed steps can be performed by looking at the plots presented in Kaub.
For these reasons, the 103 rejection will be maintained.
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 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to mathematical concepts (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)) without significantly more. The claims recites methods and systems that represent an abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites an abstract idea because the following steps are directed toward mathematical concepts (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)):
by the electronic device, approximately aligning the first and second series with each other (mathematical concept - per para 44 the recited "aligning" corresponds to scaling, centering, normalization; para 82 indicates the "aligning" is spline interpolation; therefore aligning appears to correspond to a mathematical concept.);
by the electronic device, calculating a difference between the first and second series as aligned with each other (mathematical concept - the difference is a subtraction );
by the electronic device, determining a similarity between the first and second series based on the difference (mathematical concept and/or mental process - comparison of data can be considered as math).
The additional elements recited do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more for the following reasons:
The limitation "by an electronic device" fails to integrate into a practical application or amount to significantly more because this limitation is a generically recited computer element and does not add meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because it amounts to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitation "accessing a first series of first magnetic values that represents a first magnetic recording that comprises a first set of first magnetic measurements that are each represented by one of the first magnetic values" corresponds to pre-solution data gathering (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation "by the electronic device, accessing a second series of second magnetic values that represents a second magnetic recording that comprises a second set of second magnetic measurements that are each represented by one of the second magnetic values" also corresponds to pre-solution data gathering (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Finally, the limitation "by the electronic device, performing navigation or localization based on the determined similarity " is a generically recited post solution activity and/or general field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)) that generically links the abstract idea to a technological environment.
As such, the additional elements do not incorporate the abstract ideas, identified above into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claims 11, 21, and 30 recite similar limitation and additional elements and therefore the same analysis applies.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not amount to more than mathematical concepts that can be performed by a human mentally or with a pen and paper. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not amount to more than mathematical concepts being performed by a generic computational device.
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.
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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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: “means for accessing,” “means for approximately aligning,” “means for calculating,” “means for determining,” “means for performing navigation,” in claim 30.
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 § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6, 8-16, 18-26, & 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaub et al (Kaub, Leon, et al. "Magnetic surveys with Unmanned Aerial Systems: Software for assessing and comparing the accuracy of different sensor systems, suspension designs and compensation methods." Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems 22.7 (2021): e2021GC009745.) in view of Huang et al (Huang, Grant, Brian K. Taylor, and David Akopian. "A low-cost approach of magnetic field-based location validation for global navigation satellite systems." IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement 68.12 (2019): 4937-4944.).
Regarding Independent claim 1, Kaub teaches:
A method comprising:
by an electronic device, accessing a first series of first magnetic values that represents a first magnetic recording that comprises a first set of first magnetic measurements that are each represented by one of the first magnetic values (See Fig. 2-3 and associated text. See pages 8-9.);
by the electronic device, accessing a second series of second magnetic values that represents a second magnetic recording that comprises a second set of second magnetic measurements that are each represented by one of the second magnetic values (See Fig. 2-3 and associated text. See pages 8-9.);
by the electronic device, approximately aligning the first and second series with each other (See Fig. 2-3 wherein the measurements are aligned in plot form. See pages 8-9.);
by the electronic device, calculating a difference between the first and second series as aligned with each other (See Fig. 4 and associated text wherein the differences are plotted. See pages 10-11.);
by the electronic device, determining a similarity between the first and second series based on the difference (See Fig. 4 and associated text wherein the similarity is a measure of difference as well. See pages 10-11.); and
PNG
media_image1.png
918
1269
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
604
554
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
432
568
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Kaub does not explicitly teach:
by the electronic device, performing navigation or localization based on the determined similarity.
Huang teaches:
by the electronic device, performing navigation or localization based on the determined similarity (Title, Abstract, Introduction , & elsewhere throughout the article.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the teachings of Huang to the teachings of Kaub such that by the electronic device, performing navigation or localization based on the determined similarity because this is a common, well-know, use of the data gathered and analyzed.
Regarding claim 2, Kaub & Huang teach all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Kaub teaches the first set is a first time series and the second set is a second time series (See Fig. 2 and associated text. See pages 8-9 wherein the x-axis is depicted as the time axis in seconds.); or the first set is a first distance series and the second set is a second distance series (See Fig. 2 and associated text wherein the field varies over time and distance travelled. See pages 8-9.).
Regarding claim 3, Kaub & Huang teach all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Kaub teaches the difference comprises a sum of one or more Euclidean distances (See page 7 wherein differential GNSS is disclosed which, in the broadest reasonable interpretation meets the limitation.), dynamic time warping (DTW) distances, or Frechet distances between corresponding first and second magnetic values.
Regarding claim 4, Kaub & Huang teach all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Kaub teaches determining the similarity between the first and second series based on the difference comprises: comparing the difference with a predetermined threshold (See Fig. 4 & 5 and Table 4 wherein the data is compared and analyzed with respect to a standard deviation. See pages 11-12.); and determining that the first and second series are similar to each other when the difference is approximately less than the predetermined threshold (See Fig. 4 & 5 and Table 4 wherein the data defined as good when it falls within the defined standard deviation. See pages 11-12.).
Regarding claim 5, Kaub & Huang teach all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Kaub teaches the first and second magnetic measurements comprise one or more of a total value of a magnetic field (See Fig. 2 and associated text wherein the field magnitude is depicted on the y-axis. See pages 8-9.), an inclination angle of the magnetic field, a declination angle of the magnetic field, an x component of the magnetic field, a y component of the magnetic field, or a z component of the magnetic field or a magnetic-susceptibility or magnetic-conductivity value.
Regarding claim 6, Kaub & Huang teach all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Kaub teaches each of the first and second magnetic measurements comprises a plurality of magnetic components (See Fig. 2 & 3 wherein the fields are made with differing magnetic amplitudes.); and each of the first and second magnetic values is a square root of a sum of squares of the magnetic components of the first or second magnetic measurement represented by the first or second magnetic value (See pages 11-12 wherein the RMS value is calculated.).
Regarding claim 8, Kaub & Huang teach all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Kaub teaches the first series of first magnetic values and the second series of second magnetic values were generated by the electronic device (See Fig. 2 and associated text wherein the values were gathered by a drone with the magnetometer either on the frame or on the landing gear.); the first series of first magnetic values and the second series of second magnetic values were generated by another electronic device; the first series of first magnetic values was generated by the electronic device and the second series of second magnetic values was generated by the other electronic device; or the first series of first magnetic values was generated by the other electronic device and the second series of second magnetic values was generated by the electronic device.
Regarding claim 9, Kaub & Huang teach all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Kaub teaches the first or second series of magnetic values comprises a magnetic map (See Fig. 2 and associated text. See pages 8-9 wherein the figure depicts a map of a magnetic field of the earth.).
Regarding claim 10, Kaub & Huang teach all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Kaub teaches by the electronic device: updating a magnetic map based on the determined similarity (See the plots of Fig. 3 wherein they show uncompensated, compensated and other variations of the analyzed data.); or communicating with another electronic device to update the magnetic map based on the determine similarity.
PNG
media_image2.png
604
554
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Independent claim 11, Kaub teaches:
One or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media embodying software that is operable when executed to:
access a first series of first magnetic values that represents a first magnetic recording that comprises a first set of first magnetic measurements that are each represented by one of the first magnetic values (See Fig. 2 and associated text. See pages 8-9.);
access a second series of second magnetic values that represents a second magnetic recording that comprises a second set of second magnetic measurements that are each represented by one of the second magnetic values (See Fig. 2 and associated text. See pages 8-9.);
approximately align the first and second series with each other (See Fig. 2 and associated text. See pages 8-9.);
calculate a difference between the first and second series as aligned with each other (See Fig. 4 and associated text. See pages 10-11.);
determine a similarity between the first and second series based on the difference (See Fig. 4 and associated text. See pages 10-11.); and
PNG
media_image1.png
918
1269
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kaub does not explicitly teach:
perform navigation or localization based on the determined similarity.
Huang teaches:
perform navigation or localization based on the determined similarity (Title, Abstract, Introduction , & elsewhere throughout the article.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the teachings of Huang to the teachings of Kaub such that by the electronic device, performing navigation or localization based on the determined similarity because this is a common, well-know, use of the data gathered and analyzed.
Regarding claim 12, Kaub & Huang teach all elements of claim 11, upon which this claim depends.
Kaub teaches the first set is a first time series and the second set is a second time series (See Fig. 2 and associated text. See pages 8-9 wherein the x-axis is depicted as the time axis in seconds.); or the first set is a first distance series and the second set is a second distance series (See Fig. 2 and associated text wherein the field varies over time and distance travelled. See pages 8-9.).
Regarding claim 13, Kaub & Huang teach all elements of claim 11, upon which this claim depends.
Kaub teaches the difference comprises a sum of one or more Euclidean distances (See page 7 wherein differential GNSS is disclosed which, in the broadest reasonable interpretation meets the limitation.), dynamic time warping (DTW) distances, or Frechet distances between corresponding first and second magnetic values.
Regarding claim 14, Kaub & Huang teach all elements of claim 11, upon which this claim depends.
Kaub teaches, to determine the similarity between the first and second series based on the difference, the software is operable when executed to: compare the difference with a predetermined threshold (See Fig. 4 & 5 and Table 4 wherein the data is compared and analyzed with respect to a standard deviation. See pages 11-12.); and determine that the first and second series are similar to each other when the difference is approximately less than the predetermined threshold (See Fig. 4 & 5 and Table 4 wherein the data defined as good when it falls within the defined standard deviation. See pages 11-12.).
Regarding claim 15, Kaub & Huang teach all elements of claim 11, upon which this claim depends.
Kaub teaches the first and second magnetic measurements comprise one or more of a total value of a magnetic field (See Fig. 2 and associated text wherein the field magnitude is depicted on the y-axis. See pages 8-9.), an inclination angle of the magnetic field, a declination angle of the magnetic field, an x component of the magnetic field, a y component of the magnetic field, or a z component of the magnetic field or a magnetic-susceptibility or magnetic- conductivity value.
Regarding claim 16, Kaub & Huang teach all elements of claim 11, upon which this claim depends.
Kaub teaches each of the first and second magnetic measurements comprises a plurality of magnetic components (See Fig. 2 & 3 wherein the fields are made with differing magnetic amplitudes.); and each of the first and second magnetic values is a square root of a sum of squares of the magnetic components of the first or second magnetic measurement represented by the first or second magnetic value (See pages 11-12 wherein the RMS value is calculated.).
Regarding claim 18, Kaub & Huang teach all elements of claim 11, upon which this claim depends.
Kaub teaches the first series of first magnetic values and the second series of second magnetic values were generated by a first device comprising the media (See Fig. 2 and associated text wherein the values were gathered by a drone with the magnetometer either on the frame or on the landing gear.); the first series of first magnetic values and the second series of second magnetic values were generated by a second device; the first series of first magnetic values was generated by the first device and the second series of second magnetic values was generated by the second device; or the first series of first magnetic values was generated by the second device and the second series of second magnetic values was generated by the first device.
Regarding claim 19, Kaub & Huang teach all elements of claim 11, upon which this claim depends.
Kaub teaches the first or second series of magnetic values comprises a magnetic map (See Fig. 2 and associated text. See pages 8-9 wherein the figure depicts a map of a magnetic field of the earth.).
Regarding claim 20, Kaub & Huang teach all elements of claim 11, upon which this claim depends.
Kaub teaches the software is further operable when executed to: update a magnetic map based on the determined similarity (See the plots of Fig. 3 wherein they show uncompensated, compensated and other variations of the analyzed data.; or communicate with another electronic device to update the magnetic map based on the determine similarity.
PNG
media_image2.png
604
554
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Independent claim 21, Kaub teaches:
A system comprising:
one or more processors; and
one or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media coupled to one or more of the processors and comprising instructions operable when executed by one or more of the processors to cause the system to:
access a first series of first magnetic values that represents a first magnetic recording that comprises a first set of first magnetic measurements that are each represented by one of the first magnetic values (See Fig. 2 and associated text. See pages 8-9.);
access a second series of second magnetic values that represents a second magnetic recording that comprises a second set of second magnetic measurements that are each represented by one of the second magnetic values (See Fig. 2 and associated text. See pages 8-9.);
approximately align the first and second series with each other (See Fig. 2 and associated text. See pages 8-9.);
calculate a difference between the first and second series as aligned with each other (See Fig. 4 and associated text. See pages 10-11.);
determine a similarity between the first and second series based on the difference (See Fig. 4 and associated text. See pages 10-11.); and
PNG
media_image1.png
918
1269
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kaub does not explicitly teach:
perform navigation or localization based on the determined similarity.
Huang teaches:
perform navigation or localization based on the determined similarity (Title, Abstract, Introduction , & elsewhere throughout the article.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the teachings of Huang to the teachings of Kaub such that by the electronic device, performing navigation or localization based on the determined similarity because this is a common, well-know, use of the data gathered and analyzed.
Regarding claim 22, Kaub & Huang teach all elements of claim 21, upon which this claim depends.
Kaub teaches the first set is a first time series and the second set is a second time series (See Fig. 2 and associated text. See pages 8-9 wherein the x-axis is depicted as the time axis in seconds.); or the first set is a first distance series and the second set is a second distance series.
Regarding claim 23, Kaub & Huang teach all elements of claim 21, upon which this claim depends.
Kaub teaches the difference comprises a sum of one or more Euclidean distances (See page 7 wherein differential GNSS is disclosed which, in the broadest reasonable interpretation meets the limitation.), dynamic time warping (DTW) distances, or Frechet distances between corresponding first and second magnetic values.
Regarding claim 24, Kaub & Huang teach all elements of claim 21, upon which this claim depends.
Kaub teaches, to determine the similarity between the first and second series based on the difference, the instructions are operable when executed to: compare the difference with a predetermined threshold (See Fig. 4 & 5 and Table 4 wherein the data is compared and analyzed with respect to a standard deviation. See pages 11-12.); and determine that the first and second series are similar to each other when the difference is approximately less than the predetermined threshold (See Fig. 4 & 5 and Table 4 wherein the data defined as good when it falls within the defined standard deviation. See pages 11-12.).
Regarding claim 25, Kaub & Huang teach all elements of claim 21, upon which this claim depends.
Kaub teaches the first and second magnetic measurements comprise one or more of a total value of a magnetic field (See Fig. 2 and associated text wherein the field magnitude is depicted on the y-axis. See pages 8-9.), an inclination angle of the magnetic field, a declination angle of the magnetic field, an x component of the magnetic field, a y component of the magnetic field, or a z component of the magnetic field or a magnetic- susceptibility or magnetic-conductivity value.
Regarding claim 26, Kaub & Huang teach all elements of claim 21, upon which this claim depends.
Kaub teaches each of the first and second magnetic measurements comprises a plurality of magnetic components (See Fig. 2 & 3 wherein the fields are made with differing magnetic amplitudes.); and each of the first and second magnetic values is a square root of a sum of squares of the magnetic components of the first or second magnetic measurement represented by the first or second magnetic value (See pages 11-12 wherein the RMS value is calculated.).
Regarding claim 28, Kaub & Huang teach all elements of claim 21, upon which this claim depends.
Kaub teaches the first series of first magnetic values and the second series of second magnetic values were generated by the system (See Fig. 2 and associated text wherein the values were gathered by a drone with the magnetometer either on the frame or on the landing gear.); the first series of first magnetic values and the second series of second magnetic values were generated by another system; the first series of first magnetic values was generated by the system and the second series of second magnetic values was generated by the other system; or the first series of first magnetic values was generated by the other system and the second series of second magnetic values was generated by the system.
Regarding claim 29, Kaub & Huang teach all elements of claim 21, upon which this claim depends.
Kaub teaches the first or second series of magnetic values comprises a magnetic map (See Fig. 2 and associated text. See pages 8-9 wherein the figure depicts a map of a magnetic field of the earth.).
Regarding Independent claim 30, Kaub teaches:
A system comprising:
means for accessing a first series of first magnetic values that represents a first magnetic recording that comprises a first set of first magnetic measurements that are each represented by one of the first magnetic values (See Fig. 2 and associated text. See pages 8-9.);
means for accessing a second series of second magnetic values that represents a second magnetic recording that comprises a second set of second magnetic measurements that are each represented by one of the second magnetic values (See Fig. 2 and associated text. See pages 8-9.);
means for approximately aligning the first and second series with each other (See Fig. 2 and associated text. See pages 8-9.);
means for calculating a difference between the first and second series as aligned with each other (See Fig. 4 and associated text. See pages 10-11.);
means for determining a similarity between the first and second series based on the difference (See Fig. 4 and associated text. See pages 10-11.); and
PNG
media_image1.png
918
1269
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kaub does not explicitly teach:
means for performing navigation or localization based on the determined similarity.
Huang teaches:
means for performing navigation or localization based on the determined similarity (Title, Abstract, Introduction , & elsewhere throughout the article.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the teachings of Huang to the teachings of Kaub such that by the electronic device, performing navigation or localization based on the determined similarity because this is a common, well-know, use of the data gathered and analyzed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 17, & 27 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The specific requirements of claims 7, 17, & 27 would necessitate us of impermissible hindsight to make any combination with Kaub and Huang obvious.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art listed does not anticipate alone or combine in an obvious manner to teach the invention claimed by applicant. The structural and functional limitations required are not an obvious variation of the two previously cited references and , even if the limitations are found, would require impermissible hindsight to make any combination obvious.
Regarding claim 7, Kaub & Huang teach all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Kaub & Huang do not explicitly teach approximately aligning the first and second series with each other comprises: spline interpolation of the first and second series to produce a same number of elements in the first and second series; centering the first and second series by subtracting a first average of the first magnetic values from each of the first magnetic values and subtracting a second average of the second magnetic values from each of the second magnetic values; or scaling the first and second series by dividing each of the first magnetic values by a first weighted average of the first magnetic values and dividing each of the second magnetic values by a second weighted average of the second magnetic values.
Regarding claim 17, Kaub & Huang teach all elements of claim 11, upon which this claim depends.
Kaub & Huang do not explicitly teach to approximately align the first and second series with each other, the software is operable to: perform spline interpolation of the first and second series to produce a same number of elements in the first and second series; center the first and second series by subtracting a first average of the first magnetic values from each of the first magnetic values and subtracting a second average of the second magnetic values from each of the second magnetic values; or scale the first and second series by dividing each of the first magnetic values by a first weighted average of the first magnetic values and dividing each of the second magnetic values by a second weighted average of the second magnetic values.
Regarding claim 27,
The system of Claim 21, wherein, to approximately align the first and second series with each other, the instructions are operable to: perform spline interpolation of the first and second series to produce a same number of elements in the first and second series; center the first and second series by subtracting a first average of the first magnetic values from each of the first magnetic values and subtracting a second average of the second magnetic values from each of the second magnetic values; or scale the first and second series by dividing each of the first magnetic values by a first weighted average of the first magnetic values and dividing each of the second magnetic values by a second weighted average of the second magnetic values.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art listed but not cited represents the previous state of the art and analogous art that teaches some of the limitations claimed by applicant.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER P MCANDREW whose telephone number is (469)295-9025. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6-4:30.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached on 571-270-5628. 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 P MCANDREW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights