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 05/20/2026.
Claim 1, and 3-22 are pending. Claim 2 have been cancelled. Claim 22 is new. Claims 1, 3-4, 11-13, 17 have been amended. Entry of this amendment is accepted and made of record.
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, 3-22 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, 3-10 and 22, 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 accumulated amount of power applied to the electronic device over a period of time; and generating, using a trained model, an ambient temperature value based on the raw temperature value and the determined accumulated 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 3-10, 12-16 and 18-22 merely expand on the abstract idea by appending additional steps to the mathematical algorithm on their respective independent claim 1.
Dependent claims 3-10 and 22 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 accumulated 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 accumulated 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 accumulated 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 accumulated 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 3-10, 12-16 and 18-22 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 20-22), 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 (claim 22, “providing the ambient temperature value to another device”), 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 3-10, 12-16 and 18-22 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, 3-22 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15 and 17-20 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 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).
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 expressly or specifically teach that the amount of power applied to the electronic device is an accumulated 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, 0043, 0044, 0046, 0057, 0057, power consumption levels are averaged and combined over time and weights are applied, therefore it disclose the accumulated amount of power applied to the electronic device).
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 determined amount of power applied to the electronic device is an accumulated 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, the combination of Mao and Tu disclose the materials as discussed above. 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 for the accumulated amount of power applied to the electronic device.
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 it discloses the accumulated amount of power).
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 accumulated 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, The combination of Mao and Tu disclose the materials as discussed above. 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 combination of Mao and Tu disclose the materials as discussed above.
Mao 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 9, the combination of Mao and Tu 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).
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 expressly or specifically teach that the amount of power applied to the electronic device is an accumulated 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, 0043, 0044, 0046, 0057, 0057, power consumption levels are averaged and combined over time and weights are applied, therefore it disclose the accumulated amount of power applied to the electronic device).
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 determined amount of power applied to the electronic device is an accumulated 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 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).
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 expressly or specifically teach that the amount of power applied to the electronic device is an accumulated 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, 0043, 0044, 0046, 0057, 0057, power consumption levels are averaged and combined over time and weights are applied, therefore it disclose the accumulated amount of power applied to the electronic device).
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 determined amount of power applied to the electronic device is an accumulated 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 18, the combination of Mao and Tu 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).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Mao and Tu 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 and 12 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 claims 3 and 12, 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 being an accumulated 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) in view of Tu et al. US2022/0068227A1 (hereinafter Tu) in further view of Davis et al. US10,832,225 (hereinafter Davis).
Regarding claim 7, The combination of Mao and Tu disclose 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 the combination of Mao and Tu 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 as modified by Tu 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 Tu et al. US2022/0068227A1 (hereinafter Tu) in further view of Mitter US2005/0028588A1.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Mao and Tu disclose 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 the combination of Tu and 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 as modified by Tu 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 Tu et al. US2022/0068227A1 (hereinafter Tu) in further view of Modi et al. US 20130204442A1 (hereinafter Modi).
Regarding claim 8, 16 and 21, The combination of Mao and Tu disclose 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 the combination of Mao and Tu 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 as modified by Tu 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) 22 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 Bamba et al. US2020/0301487A1.
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Mao and Tu disclose the materials discussed above with respect to claim 1. Mao further disclose that the trained model is a trained machine learning model (see abstract, para. 0004, wherein a neural network is trained). However the combination of Mao and Tu do not appear to expressly or explicitly disclose that the method further comprises providing the ambient temperature value to another device.
Bamba disclose an ambient temperature estimating device and method in which a neural network calculator to estimate an ambient temperature around the ambient temperature estimating device, and a temperature acquisition unit to acquire one or more temperature values inside the ambient temperature estimating device (see abstract). Bamba further disclose providing the ambient temperature value to another device see para. 0007 and 0019, where a plurality of ambient temperature estimating devices comprising communication units is disclosed and wherein the communication units are configured to be able to communicate data from the ambient temperature estimating devices to each other is disclosed).
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 Bamba discussed above, to configure the system of Mao as modified by Tu for providing the ambient temperature value to another device, for the benefit of providing a decentralize system which allow to estimate ambient temperature with high accuracy (see para. 0006, 0009), therefore the system would be enhanced by providing precise and accurate ambient temperature measurements.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to rejection under 35 USC 101 applicant argues with respect to Step 2A Prong One that the claims do not recite concepts related to mathematical algorithms/concepts, and mental processes and concepts performed in the human mind e.g. observation, evaluation, judgement, 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” (see penultimate paragraph on page 7 of the remarks). Applicant further argues that “reading a raw temperature value from a temperature mounted in an electronic device”, “determining an accumulated amount of power applied to the electronic device over a period of time”, and “generating, using a trained model an ambient temperature value based on the raw temperature value and the determined accumulated amount of power as recited by clam 1, 11, and 17, as amended is not a process that can be performed in the human mind. Applicant submits that the claimed determination is grounded in measurements from a physical electronic device and reflects operation of that device over time, rather than a purely mental evaluation; and that the Office Action’s assertion that this could be done with pen and paper over simplifies the nature of this limitation, which is inherently tied to the physical operation of the electronic device itself (see last paragraph on page 7 through first paragraph on page 8 of the remarks).
In response the examiner disagrees and submits that under Prong 2A Prong One as discussed above, the claims recite concepts related to mathematical algorithms o mathematical concepts, and mental processes and concepts performed in the human mind e.g. observation, evaluation, judgement, 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”. It is clear from the claim that determining an amount of power applied to an electronic device is a numerical value, and that the determining an accumulated amount of power applied to the electronic device over a period of time is a mathematical concept. The original disclosure of the invention disclose that the accumulated amount of power is exponentially weighted and that an average power is used for the accumulated amount of power applied (see para. 0019, 0024, 0027, 0046; claims 3 and 4), which supports the fact that the claimed determination is a mathematical concept and a step that could be purely mental or implemented by pen and paper.
Similarly the “generating” step is a step which recites that an ambient value is generated based on the raw temperature value and the determined accumulated amount of power, which recites a mathematical concept. It is clear from the original disclosure of the invention that the ambient temperature value generated is a mathematical concept as the original disclosure of the invention disclose that the ambient temperature value is a mathematical concept in which the temperature is determined by calculating (see para. 0019), which supports the fact that the claimed generating step a mathematical concept and a step that could be purely mental or implemented by pen and paper. Examiner further submits that the degree of difficulty or complexity of mathematical calculations do not preclude the calculations from being conducted in the human mind or by pen and paper.
Although examiner acknowledge that to perform calculations by using increased amount of data accumulated over time may be a complex task to perform in the human mind or by pen and paper and would take more time than by performing complex operations by using a general computer, however claimed determining and generating steps as claimed are still considered abstract ideas directed towards mathematical concepts and processes that can be purely mental as discussed above.
Examiner submits that although the claimed determination is grounded in measurements from a physical electronic device, however these measurements which as recited by the claimed language is “reading a raw temperature value from a temperature sensor mounted in an electronic device” amounts to mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use (i.e. electronic device, temperature measurements) and because the data used for implementing the abstract idea must necessarily be “obtained” and do not amount to a practical application of the judicial exception as to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Therefore, for the reasons discussed above the claims stand rejected under 35 USC 101.
Applicant argues that “[e]ven assuming arguendo that the claims recite an abstract idea, the claims as a whole integrate any such exception into a practical application because they are directed to an improvement in the sensor technology” and submits that the specific technical problem is addressed by “using a trained model that takes as input both the raw temperature value from a physical sensor and the amount of power consumption as a proxy for heat generation—to generate a corrected ambient temperature value representing the temperature outside of the electronic device”. Applicant further submits that “viewing the claims as a whole—reading a raw temperature value from a physical sensor, determining accumulated power over time, and using a trained model to generate a corrected ambient temperature—these limitations interact to provide a specific technological solution to the technical problem of sensor inaccuracy (see last paragraph on page 8 of the remarks).
In response, the examiner disagrees. It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., using a trained model that takes as input both the raw temperature value from a physical sensor and the amount of power consumption as a proxy for heat generation—to generate a corrected ambient temperature value representing the temperature outside of the electronic device) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Examiner further submits that the claimed language do not reflect the alleged improvement to the operation of the computer and that the alleged improvements mentioned is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h) and as such is not indicative of a practical application of abstract idea. Furthermore, as discussed above reading a raw temperature value from a physical sensor amounts to the recitation of mere data gathering recited to a high level of generality, generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use; and the steps of determining accumulated power over time, and using a trained model to generate a corrected ambient temperature as discussed above and as evidenced by the original disclosure of the invention amounts to the recitation of recite concepts related to mathematical algorithms o mathematical concepts, and mental processes and concepts performed in the human mind e.g. observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion. The claim do not recite additional claim elements that as a whole integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as the additional claimed limitations amounts to the implementation of the abstract idea on a generic computer which also merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed and fails to add an inventive concept to the claims, and because the additional claim elements amounts to mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality generally linking the judicial exception to a field of use and the result are not used in any particular manner as to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Applicant argues that similarly to precedential Appeals Review decision in Ex Parte Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024-000567 (PTAB September 26,2025) “the specification of instant application identifies a specific technological improvement –correcting sensor inaccuracy caused by device self-heating—and the claims reflect that improvement by reciting the specific steps of reading a raw temperature value from a physical sensor, determining accumulated power over time, and using a trained model to generate a corrected ambient temperature value”. Applicant further submits that “the trained model is not a generic computer component—it is specifically configured to improve the accuracy of the electronic device’s temperature sensing capability, which is an improvement to sensor technology analogous to the improvements credited in Desjardins” (see first and second paragraph on page 9). Applicant further submits that the trained model recited in the claims is not a generic computer and states it is specifically configured to solve the concrete technical problem of sensor inaccuracy due to device self-heating, taking specific inputs (raw temperature value and accumulated power over time) to produce a specific technically useful output (a corrected ambient temperature value representing the temperature outside of the electronic device) and that this reflects the improvement described in the specification and that the claims do not merely apply an abstract idea on a generic computer but that they recite a particular solution to a particular technical problem (see first paragraph on page 10 of the remarks).
In response the examiner disagrees and submits that in Desjardins the claimed invention was a method of training a machine learning model on a series of tasks and was determined that the specification identified improvements as to how the machine learning model itself operates, including training a machine learning model to learn new tasks while protecting knowledge about previous tasks to overcome the problem of “catastrophic forgetting” encountered in continual learning systems and the Appeals Review Panel (ARP) evaluated the claims as a whole that at least the limitation “adjust the first values of the plurality of parameters to optimize performance of the machine learning model on the second machine learning task while protecting performance of the machine learning model on the first machine learning task” reflected the improvement disclosed in the specification and that the claims as a whole integrated what would otherwise be a judicial exception instead a practical application. However, Instant application is not analogous to Desjardins as the claimed language is not directed to training of a machine learning model but to “determining an accumulated amount of power…” and “generating, using a training model, an ambient temperature value based on the raw temperature value and the determined accumulated amount of power…” which as discussed above describe mathematical concepts in which the “trained model” used 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). The claim does not reflect any alleged improvements to the functioning of a computer or the technology or technological field such as to be considered a practical application of the abstract ideas as to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Furthermore, the claims language do not reflect any alleged improvement discussed or suggested by the original disclosure of the invention as to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Applicant argues that the alleged improvement “using a trained model to correct sensor inaccuracy caused by device self-heating” is also analogous to the eligible claims in USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility Example 3 (Digital Image Processing), where mathematical operations (generating a blue noise mask) were integrated into a practical application of improving image processing technology. Applicant submits that “the trained model improves the accuracy of the electronic device’s temperature sensing capability—a concrete improvement to sensor technology, not merely applying math on a generic computer”, similar to Example 3 in which it was found that “viewing the claim elements as an ordered combination, the steps recited in addition to the blue noise mask improve the functioning of the claimed computer itself” and “produce an improve digital image” (see last paragraph on page 9 of the remarks).
In response the examiner disagrees and submits that as discussed above, the recited steps of “determining an accumulated amount of power…” and “generating, using a training model, an ambient temperature value based on the raw temperature value and the determined accumulated amount of power…” describe mathematical concepts in which the trained model used a 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). The additional claim elements recited by the claims amount to mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use. The claim does not reflect any alleged improvements to the functioning of a computer or the technology or technological field such as to be considered a practical application of the abstract ideas as to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore for the reasons discussed above the claims stand rejected under 35 USC 101.
With respect to 35 USC 102/103 rejections, applicant argues with respect to amended claim 1, that Mao does not disclose determining an amount of power applied to electronic device and that Tu also does not disclose “determining an amount of power applied to the electronic device accumulated over a period of time” as recited by the claims and that Tu’s power monitoring units measure and average power consumption levels within short sampling durations for measurement accuracy (see Tu, paragraph 0044), but that it is fundamentally different from accumulating the total amount of power applied to the electronic device over a period of time and submits that Tu does not accumulate or integrate the total power applied to the device over time and is distinct concept from instant application claim (see last paragraph 11 of the remarks).
In response the examiner disagrees and submits that Tu prior art which was brought into the combination as disclosing the amount of power applied to the electronic device is an accumulated 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 power consumption levels are averaged and combined/accumulated over time and weights are applied, therefore it disclose the accumulated amount of power applied to the electronic device (see abstract, para. 0003, 0043, 0044, 0046, 0057, 0057). An average is a single, representative value that summarizes a set of data, therefore the a set of data of Tu being averaged includes "an accumulated amount of power". Furthermore the original disclosure of the invention disclose an average is used for the accumulated amount of power applied value (see para. 0027, claim 4). Therefore in light of the original disclosure of the invention the combination of Mao as modified by the teachings of Tu disclose the “accumulated amount of power applied to the electronic device” as claimed.
With respect to claim 11 applicant have presented similar arguments to those presented with respect to claim 1 and argues that the measuring of heat generated by the display and heat generated by a relay of the power circuit are measuring heat produced by different components of device and is fundamentally different from determining an accumulated temperature value over a period of time, let alone determining an accumulated amount of power applied over a period of time as claimed.
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).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., determining an accumulated temperature value over a period of time) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The examiner further submits that as discussed above that Tu prior art which was brought into the combination as disclosing the amount of power applied to the electronic device is an accumulated amount of power applied to the electronic device over a period of time.
With respect to the argued limitation, Tu disclose that power consumption levels are averaged and combined/accumulated over time and weights are applied, therefore it disclose the accumulated amount of power applied to the electronic device (see abstract, para. 0003, 0043, 0044, 0046, 0057, 0057). As discussed above, an average is a single, representative value that summarizes a set of data, therefore the a set of data of Tu being averaged includes "an accumulated amount of power". Furthermore the original disclosure of the invention disclose an average is used for the accumulated amount of power applied value (see para. 0027, claim 4). Therefore in light of the original disclosure of the invention the combination of Mao as modified by the teachings of Tu disclose the “accumulated amount of power applied to the electronic device” as claimed.
With respect to claim 17 applicant have presented similar arguments as those presented with respect to claims 1 and 11.
In response the examiner disagrees for similar reasons discussed above with respect to independent claims 1 and 11.
With respect to dependent claims applicant have presented similar arguments as those presented with respect to claims 1, 11 and 17.
In response the examiner disagrees for similar reasons discussed above with respect to independent claims 1, 11 and 17.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to newly added claim(s) 22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
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
Prosecution Insights