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 .
This action is responsive to communication filed on 01/10/2023.
Claims 1-21 are pending.
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. A subject matter eligibility analysis is set forth below. See MPEP 2106.
Under Step 1 of the analysis, claims 1-10, belongs to a statutory category namely a method. Also claims 11-16 belongs to a statutory category, namely it is a system (i.e. “non transitory computer readable medium”) claim and claim 17-21 , belongs to a statutory category, namely it is a system (i.e. “electronic device”) claim.
Under Step 2A, prong 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
The claim(s) 1, 11 and 17 recite(s) concepts related to mathematical algorithms/concepts, and mental processes and concepts performed in the human mind e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion for determining an amount of power applied to the electronic device; and generating, using a trained model, an ambient temperature value based on the raw temperature value and the determined amount of power, wherein the ambient temperature value represents a temperature outside of the electronic device (claims 1, 11 and 17). The concepts discussed above can be considered to describe mental processes, namely concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper, and/or mathematical concepts, namely a series of calculations leading to one or more numerical results or answers. Although, the claim does not spell out any particular equation or formula being used, the lack of specific equations for individual steps merely points out that the claim would monopolize all possible calculations in performing the steps. These steps recited by the claims, therefore amount to a series of mental or mathematical steps, making these limitations amount to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong 2 of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception(s) into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed 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 the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the abstract idea is not performed by using any particular device, because the use of a “trained model” (claims 1, 11, 17), amounts to the implementation of the abstract idea on a generic computer also merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h); because the “one or more processors” recited by claims 11 and 17, amounts to the recitation of a general purpose computer used to apply the abstract idea; the recitation of “reading a raw temperature value from a temperature sensor mounted in an electronic device”, recited by claims 1, 11 and 17, is mere data gathering recited at high level of generality generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use (i.e. electronic device, temperature measurements) and the results of the algorithm (i.e. ambient temperature value) are merely output/stored (i.e. memory, non-transitory computer readable medium) as part of insignificant post-solution activity and are not used in any particular matter as to integrate the abstract idea in a practical application.
Under Step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, merely amount to a general purpose computer “one or more processors” recited by claims 11 and 17, used to apply the abstract idea and mere data gathering/output recited at a high level of generality and insignificant extra-solution activity that when further analyzed under Step 2B is found to be well-understood, routine and conventional activities as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) (i.e. “non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions” in claim 11; “memory storing a plurality of computer programs” in claim 17); and because the data of performing the algorithm must necessarily be “obtained” and the use of a general purpose computer to implement the abstract idea for performing the algorithm does not amount to significantly more than the recitation of the abstract idea itself.
Therefore, claims 1, 11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent claims 2-10, 12-16 and 18-21 merely expand on the abstract idea by appending additional steps to the mathematical algorithm on their respective independent claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-14 merely expands on the abstract idea by reciting additional steps related to mathematical algorithms/concepts, and mental processes and concepts performed in the human mind e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion and mere characterization of the data acquired and applied for performing the abstract idea i.e. accumulating the amount of power applied to the electronic device over a period of time (claim 2), “wherein the amount of power applied to the electronic device over the period of time is exponentially weighted” (claim 3); “wherein an average power is used for the amount of power applied to the electronic device for a portion of the period of time when the electronic device has not been connected to power for an entirety of the period of time” (claim 4); “wherein the average power is a blend of an average idle power and an average active power, and wherein the blend is based on activity of the electronic device since the electronic device was connected to power” (claim 5); “determining a media playback state of the electronic device; and determining a volume setting of the electronic device, wherein the ambient temperature value is generated, using the trained model, further based on the media playback state of the electronic device and the volume setting of the electronic device” (claim 6); “wherein the trained model is trained using a dataset comprising values recorded from a plurality of devices of the same type as the electronic device and a plurality of reference sensors”(claim 7); “comparing the light value against a threshold, wherein the ambient temperature value is generated, using the trained model, further based on the light value read from the ambient light sensor if the light value satisfies the threshold” (claim 8); “wherein the ambient temperature value is different from the raw temperature value” (claim 9); “determining an ambient humidity value from the ambient temperature value” (claim 10).
Dependent claims 12-16 merely expands on the abstract idea by reciting additional steps related to mathematical algorithms/concepts, and mental processes and concepts performed in the human mind e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion and mere characterization of the data acquired and applied for performing the abstract idea i.e. “wherein the amount of power applied to the electronic device over the period of time is exponentially weighted” (claim 12); “wherein an average power is used for the amount of power applied to the electronic device for a portion of the period of time when the electronic device has not been connected to power for an entirety of the period of time” (claim 13); “wherein the average power is a blend of an average idle power and an average active power, and wherein the blend is based on activity of the electronic device since the electronic device was connected to power” (claim 14); “determining a media playback state of the electronic device; and determining a volume setting of the electronic device, wherein the ambient temperature value is generated, using the trained model, further based on the media playback state and the volume setting of the electronic device” (claim 15); “comparing the light value against a threshold, wherein the ambient temperature value is generated, using the trained model, further based on the light value read from the ambient light sensor if the light value satisfies the threshold” (claim 16).
Dependent claims 18-21 merely expands on the abstract idea by reciting additional steps related to mathematical algorithms/concepts, and mental processes and concepts performed in the human mind e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion and mere characterization of the data acquired and applied for performing the abstract idea i.e. “determine a media playback state of the electronic device; and determine a volume setting of the electronic device, wherein the ambient value is generated, using the trained model, further based on the media playback state and the volume setting of the electronic device” (claim 20); “compare the light value against a threshold, wherein the ambient value is generated, using the trained model, further based on the light value read from the ambient light sensor if the light value satisfies the threshold” (claim 21)..
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application in claims 2-10, 12-16 and 18-20 because the abstract idea is not performed by using any particular device because the use of a “trained model” (claims 6-8, 15-17, and 20-21), amounts to the implementation of the abstract idea on a generic computer also merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h); because the “one or more processors” recited in claims 11, 17, 20-21, amounts to the recitation of a general purpose computer used to apply the abstract idea; and because the recitation of the “plurality of reference sensors” recited in claim 7, the “ambient light sensor” recited in claims 8-9, the “ambient light sensor” recited in claim16; the “environmental sensor” and “temperature sensor” recited in claim 18; the “humidity sensor” recited in claim 19; and “ambient light sensor” recited in claim 21 amounts to mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, in which the data is output/stored as part of post-solution activities, the limitations merely add further details as to the type of data, the means of collecting data being received/input/stored (i.e. memory, non-transitory computer readable medium) and used with the mental process and/or math steps recited in the independent claims, also further calculations and math, so they are properly viewed as part of the recited abstract idea; and the results are not used in any particular matter as to integrate the abstract idea in a practical application.
The claim(s) claims 2-10, 12-16 and 18-21 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the only additional elements are general purpose computer used to apply the abstract idea and mere data gathering/output recited at a high level of generality and insignificant extra-solution activity that when further analyzed under Step 2B is found to be well-understood, routine and conventional activities as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); and because the data of performing the algorithm must necessarily be “obtained” and the use of a general purpose computer to implement the abstract idea for performing the algorithm does not amount to significantly more than the recitation of the abstract idea itself.
Therefore claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 9, 11 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mao et a. US2019/0293494A1 (hereinafter Mao).
Regarding claim 1, Mao disclose a method (see abstract) comprising:
reading a raw temperature value from a temperature sensor mounted in an electronic device (see abstract; para. 0003, 0011, 0019, 0031);
determining an amount of power applied to the electronic device (see abstract, para. 0003, 0011, 0019, 0056, 0066-0067, claim 1); and
generating, using a trained model, an ambient temperature value based on the raw temperature value and the determined amount of power, wherein the ambient temperature value represents a temperature outside of the electronic device (see abstract, para. 0003, 0011, 0019, 00031, 00555-0056, 0066-0067, claim 1).
Regarding claim 9, Mao disclose the materials discussed above. Mao further disclose that the ambient temperature value is different from the raw temperature value (see abstract, wherein temperature from first temperature sensor of a device and measurement of temperature of a processing circuit are disclosed as used in order to more accurately determine ambient temperature of the device, therefore the ambient temperature is different from the raw temperature value as claimed).
Regarding claim 11, Mao disclose a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions (para. 00034, memory) which, when executed by one or more processors (para. 0034, processing electronics), cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
reading a raw temperature value from a temperature sensor mounted in an electronic device (see abstract; para. 0003, 0011, 0019, 0031);
determining an amount of power applied to the electronic device accumulated over a period of time (see abstract, para. 0003, 0011, 0019, 0056, 0066-0067, claim 1); and
generating, using a trained model, an ambient temperature value based on the raw temperature value and the determined amount of power, wherein the ambient temperature value represents a temperature outside of the electronic device (see abstract, para. 0003, 0011, 0019, 00031, 00555-0056, 0066-0067, claim 1).
Regarding claim 17, Mao disclose an electronic device, comprising:
an environmental sensor (see abstract; para. 0003, 0011, 0019, 0031);
a memory storing a plurality of computer programs (para. 00034, memory); and one or more processors configured to execute instructions of the plurality of computer programs (para. 00034, processing electronics) to:
read a raw value from the environmental sensor (see abstract; para. 0003, 0011, 0019, 0031);
determine an amount of power applied to the electronic device accumulated over a period of time (see abstract, para. 0003, 0011, 0019, 0056, 0066-0067, claim 1); and
generate, using a trained model, an ambient value based on the raw value and the determined amount of power, wherein the ambient value represents an environmental condition outside of the electronic device (see abstract, para. 0003, 0011, 0019, 00031, 00555-0056, 0066-0067, claim 1).
Regarding claim 18, Mao disclose the materials discussed above. Mao further disclose that the environmental sensor is a temperature sensor and the environmental condition is an ambient temperature (see abstract, wherein temperature from first temperature sensor of a device and measurement of temperature of a processing circuit are disclosed as used in order to more accurately determine ambient temperature of the device, therefore the ambient temperature is different from the raw temperature value as claimed).
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) 2, 4, 5, 6, 13, 14, 15 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mao et a. US2019/0293494A1 (hereinafter Mao) in view of Tu et al. US2022/0068227A1 (hereinafter Tu).
Regarding claim 2, Mao discloses all the materials as discussed above with respect to claim1. Although Mao discloses a state of a relay indicative of level of electrical energy powering the device being used for determining the ambient temperature (see abstract, para. 0003, 0011, 0031, 0053, 0055-0056).
However Mao do not specifically teach that the amount of power applied to the electronic device comprises accumulating the amount of power applied to the electronic device over a period of time.
Tu discloses a method for correcting temperature measurements, wherein the electronic device includes a temperature sensor that measures an ambient temperature of an environment and a display that is driven by a display driver (abstract). Tu further teaches that the amount of power applied to the electronic device comprises accumulating the amount of power applied to the electronic device over a period of time (see abstract, para. 0003, 0044, 0046, 0057).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention given the teachings of Tu discussed above, to configure the system of Mao such that the amount of power applied to the electronic device comprises accumulating the amount of power applied to the electronic device over a period of time for the benefit of providing an enhanced system and providing accurate ambient temperature measurement by correcting the measurements for factors affecting the temperature readings such as accounting for power consumption levels of heat generating components (see para. 0003).
Regarding claim 4 and 13, Mao further discloses the amount of power applied to the electronic device for a portion of the period of time when the electronic device has not been connected to power for an entirety of the period of time. (para. 0031, 0056-0057, wherein relay temperature may be calculated based on current state (i.e. on/off) for the power circuit wherein calibration is made based on the relay temperature based on relay power amount).
However it does not expressly or explicitly discloses an average power being used.
Tu discloses a correction temperature system and method in which values of power are used for adjusting ambient temperature corrections (abstract) and further discloses averaging the measured power consumption levels (para. 0043).
Therefore, given the teachings of Tu it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Mao for using an average power for the amount of power applied to the electronic device for a portion of the period of time when the electronic device has not been connected to power for an entirety of the period of time for the benefit of providing simplification of data by summarizing large datasets into a single representative value, making complex information easy to interpret and compare.
Regarding claim 5 and 14, Mao further discloses the amount of power is a blend of an idle power and an active power, and wherein the blend is based on activity of the electronic device since the electronic device was connected to power (para. 0031, 0056-0057, wherein relay temperature may be calculated based on current state (i.e. on/off)/blend of state idle/active for the power circuit wherein calibration is made based on the relay temperature based on relay power amount, wherein the connection to power is implied).
However it does not expressly or explicitly discloses an average power being used.
Tu discloses a correction temperature system and method in which values of power are used for adjusting ambient temperature corrections (abstract) and further discloses averaging the measured power consumption levels (para. 0043).
Therefore, given the teachings of Tu it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Mao for using an average power, wherein the average power is a blend of an average idle power and an average active power, and wherein the blend is based on activity of the electronic device since the electronic device was connected to power for the benefit of providing simplification of data by summarizing large datasets into a single representative value, making complex information easy to interpret and compare.
Regarding claim 6, 15 and 20, the Mao discloses the materials discussed above.
Mao does disclose temperature sensor calibration by accounting for contribution of internal components of the system to temperature by using a neural network/trained model (see abstract, 0003, 0011, 0031, 0053).
However, Mao is silent as disclosing determine a media playback state of the electronic device; and determine a volume setting of the electronic device, wherein the ambient value is generated, using the trained model, further based on the media playback state and the volume setting of the electronic device.
Tu suggests that the temperature determination is based on power consumptions of heat generated components (i.e. speakers, microphones, display screen, etc.) and determine a media playback state of the electronic device (see para. 0024-0026, wherein the system accounts for active or inactive state and functions of media play/media playback state, [i.e. accounting on whether it is in an active or inactive]); and determine a volume setting of the electronic device (whether speakers are muted or not [volume setting], see para.0024-0026), wherein an ambient temperature value is generated based on the media playback state and volume setting of the electronic device (see para. 0024-0026, wherein temperature correction is disclosed based on power consumptions of heat generated components (i.e. speakers, microphones and display screen) and on its status).
Although it is implied from Tu, that the temperature value is generated, further based on the media playback state of the electronic device and the volume setting of the electronic device as discussed above. However it does not explicitly discloses wherein the ambient temperature value is generated, using the trained model, further based on the media playback state of the electronic device and the volume setting of the electronic device (emphasis added).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention given the teachings of Tu discussed above, to configure the system of Mao such that the ambient temperature value is generated, using the trained model, further based on the media playback state of the electronic device and the volume setting of the electronic device for the benefit of providing an enhanced system that would allow for temperature determinations accounting for the impact of heat generating components within the system in the overall temperature and correcting the temperature based in the impact of said heat generating components in order to obtain accurate and precise temperature measurements.
Regarding claim 19, Mao disclose the materials discussed above. Mao further disclose that the system is controlled to achieve a control over temperature and humidity and a thermostat to control humidity (see para. 0038-0039), therefore humidity measurements are suggested and/or implied.
However Mao it does not specifically the thermostat measuring humidity value.
Tu discloses a power monitoring for correcting ambient temperature measurement (see abstract) and further disclose the environmental sensor is a humidity sensor and the environmental condition is a humidity value (para. 0019, wherein the thermostat detect climate characteristic e.g. temperature and/or humidity).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the thermostat of Mao in light of the teachings of Tu discussed above such that the environmental sensor is a humidity sensor and the environmental condition is a humidity value for the benefit of achieving a more elegant control of humidity indoors and to optimize indoor comfort, and improving energy efficiency.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mao et a. US2019/0293494A1 (hereinafter Mao) in view of Tu et al. US2022/0068227A1 (hereinafter Tu) in further view of NIST Engineering Statistics Handbook 2012 Publication (hereinafter NIST).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Mao and Tu discloses the materials as applied above. Although Mao accounts for level of electrical energy powering the system in accounting for temperature; and Tu, disclose the amount of power applied comprises accumulating the amount of power applied to the electronic device over a period of time (see abstract, para. 0003, 0044, 0046, 0057)., and that the correction done with respect to power consumption and based on weighted combination of power consumptions (see para. 0046).
However Mao and Tu do not expressly or explicitly discloses that the amount of power applied to the electronic device over the period of time is exponentially weighted (emphasis added).
NIST discloses Exponentially weighted moving average, which is a statistic for monitoring the process that averages data in order to determine variations in monitoring measurements for quick detection of small changes and further discloses (see chapter 2: section 2.2.2, section 2.2.2.1.1) and further discloses the use of Exponentially weighted moving average in calibrations since it is capable of detecting small changes and may be a better choice for a high precision process that is producing may control values (see Chapter 2, section 2.3.5.2.1, “Re-establishing the limits based on recent data and EWMA option”; and section 2.3.5.2.2).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention given the teachings of NIST of Exponentially weighted moving average statistics to configure the system of Mo as modified by Tu such that the amount of power applied to the electronic device over the period of time is exponentially weighted for the benefit of providing more accurate and precise analysis of the data since it is known that Exponentially weighted moving average is capable of detecting small changes and may be a better choice for a high precision process (see NIST, Chapter 2, section 2.3.5.2.1, “Re-establishing the limits based on recent data and EWMA option”; and section 2.3.5.2.2).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mao et a. US2019/0293494A1 (hereinafter Mao) view of Davis et al. US10,832,225 (hereinafter Davis).
Regarding claim 7, Mao discloses the materials as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Mao disclose a neural network with time data set that includes first temperature measurement, second temperature measurement, brightness level, state of the relay and a measurement of ambient temperature generated by a third temperature sensor being trained to recognize inputs from temperature measurements, wherein the neural network is trained to recognize these inputs tin order to more accurately determine the ambient temperature of the device (see abstract; para. 0004, 0012, 0020, 0056-0057, 0067).
However Mao do not specifically disclose that the trained model is trained using a dataset comprising values recorded from a plurality of devices of the same type as the electronic device and a plurality of reference sensors.
Davis disclose a diagnostic system in a smart home environment (see abstract) and further discloses a trained model is trained using a dataset comprising values recorded from a plurality of devices of the same type as the electronic device and a plurality of reference sensors, (“for each of one or more pieces of smart home equipment located at a property which includes a smart home system: receiving sensor data for the piece of smart home equipment from one or more sensors communicatively coupled to the piece of smart home equipment, … obtaining other sets of sensor data from smart devices of a same type as the piece of smart home equipment at other properties which are not associated with the smart home controller, and learning new sets of characteristics from the other sets of sensor data for the piece of smart home equipment based on the other sets of sensor data”, see col. 2, ll. 46-67; col. 3, ll. 1).
Given the teachings of Davis discussed above it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Mao such that the trained model is trained using a dataset comprising values recorded from a plurality of devices of the same type as the electronic device and a plurality of reference sensors for the benefit of enabling the algorithm to analyze data, and make accurate, data-driven predictions on new, unseen information and to provide a well-trained models to provide precise, reliable and consistent predictions, reducing errors.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mao et a. US2019/0293494A1 (hereinafter Mao) in view of Mitter US2005/0028588A1.
Regarding claim 10, Mao discloses the materials discussed above. Mao further disclose that the system being controlled to achieve more elegant control over temperature and humidity (see para. 0038-0038), therefore, the system is determining humidity.
However Mao is silent as to disclosing determining an ambient humidity value from the ambient temperature value .
Mitter discloses a method and device for measuring humidity (abstract) and further discloses determining ambient humidity value from the ambient temperature value (see para. 0012).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention given the teachings of Mitter to configure the system of Mao for determining an ambient humidity value from the ambient temperature value for the benefit of allowing a reliable determination of relative humidity in the high-humidity range with as little expenditure as possible (see para. 0005) and for providing critical actionable data for environmental control and effective monitoring and management of environmental conditions.
Claim(s) 8, 16 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mao et al. US2019/0293494A1 (hereinafter Mao) in view of Modi et al. US 20130204442A1 (hereinafter Modi).
Regarding claim 8, 16 and 21, Mao discloses the materials discussed above. Mao further disclose reading a light value from an ambient light sensor of the electronic device (see abstract; para. 0003-0006, 0011-0013, 0056, 0058, 0060-0061); and, wherein the ambient temperature value is generated, using the trained model, further based on the light value read from the ambient light sensor if the light value satisfies the threshold (abstract, para. 0003-0006, 0011-0012, 0031, 0056, 0058, 0060-0061).
However Mao do not specifically teach comparing the light value against a threshold.
Modi discloses an HVAC controller configuration that compensate temperatures for heating of the thermostat accounting for heating of the thermostat caused by direct sunlight measured, the system comprising light sensor and wherein the system compares the light value to a threshold and changes ambient temperature determination algorithm and looks for increase temperature associated to sunlight spike (see abstract, para. 0037, 0045, 0056-0058, 0111-0112, 0121, claims 8, 17).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention given the teachings of Modi discussed above, to configure the system of Mao for comparing the light value against a threshold wherein the ambient temperature value is generated, using the trained model, further based on the light value read from the ambient light sensor if the light value satisfies the threshold for the benefit of obtaining accurate and precise measurements of ambient temperature and for achieving energy efficiency and better control and regulation of heating and cooling equipment within facilities (see para. 0002, 0003).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mao et a. US2019/0293494A1 (hereinafter Mao) in view of NIST Engineering Statistics Handbook 2012 Publication (hereinafter NIST).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Mao discloses the materials as applied above. Although Mao accounts for level of electrical energy powering the system in accounting for temperature (see abstract, para. 0003, 0011, 0056, 0060).
However Mao do not expressly or explicitly discloses that the amount of power applied to the electronic device over the period of time is exponentially weighted (emphasis added).
NIST discloses Exponentially weighted moving average, which is a statistic for monitoring the process that averages data in order to determine variations in monitoring measurements for quick detection of small changes and further discloses (see chapter 2: section 2.2.2, section 2.2.2.1.1) and further discloses the use of Exponentially weighted moving average in calibrations since it is capable of detecting small changes and may be a better choice for a high precision process that is producing may control values (see Chapter 2, section 2.3.5.2.1, “Re-establishing the limits based on recent data and EWMA option”; and section 2.3.5.2.2).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention given the teachings of NIST of Exponentially weighted moving average statistics to configure the system of Mao such that the amount of power applied to the electronic device over the period of time is exponentially weighted for the benefit of providing more accurate and precise analysis of the data since it is known that Exponentially weighted moving average is capable of detecting small changes and may be a better choice for a high precision process (see NIST, Chapter 2, section 2.3.5.2.1, “Re-establishing the limits based on recent data and EWMA option”; and section 2.3.5.2.2).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record cited in form PTOL-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mueller et al. US2015/0241370A1 disclose a portable electronic device, an ambient temperature is sensed by means of a temperature sensor. In addition, it is assessed if the portable electronic device is exposed to condensation. A corresponding condensation indicator is provided. The condensation indicator is determined based on a dew point and based on sensed temperature values of the past or temperature derived from the past sensed temperature values (abstract).
Fornasari et al. US 20190195820 A1 disclose an integrated humidity and temperature sensor includes a humidity sensor configured to output a signal corresponding to a first humidity value at a first time and a second humidity value at a second time, a temperature sensor configured to output a signal corresponding to a first temperature at the first time and a second temperature at the second time, a heating element configured to raise a temperature of the humidity sensor and the temperature sensor between the first time and the second time, and a processor device configured to determine a drift value of the humidity sensor according to the first and the second temperatures and the first and the second humidity values. The processor device is also configured to adjust the humidity sensor by the drift value. Adjustment of the humidity sensor can be a shift of an output of the humidity sensor by the drift value (see abstract).
Huang US Patent 9,341,741 disclose an electronic device includes a temperature and humidity sensor, a timing unit, and a storage unit storing a number of temperature values provided by weather forecast. Each of the temperature values provided by the weather forecast is associated with one time point. The electronic device obtains the temperature value and the humidity value sensed by the temperature and humidity sensor, obtains current time from the timing unit, associates the obtained temperature value and the humidity value with the current time, and stores the associated temperature value, humidity value, and the current time. The electronic device further compares each obtained temperature value with each temperature value provided by the weather forecast to find at which time point there is a match, searches in the storage unit to determine that each determined humidity value associated with one found time point is a humidity value with accuracy (abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YARITZA H PEREZ BERMUDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1520. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Shelby A Turner can be reached at (571) 272-6334. 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.
/YARITZA H. PEREZ BERMUDEZ/
Examiner
Art Unit 2857
/SHELBY A TURNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857