DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments received 5 February 2026, have been fully considered. Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-21 are pending. Claims 2, 9, and 16 have been canceled. Claims 1, 8, 15, and 17-21 have been amended.
Applicant’s efforts to amend the specification are satisfactory, therefore all objections to the specification are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been considered.
Claims 15 and 17-21 are no longer directed to non-statutory matter in light of Applicant’s amendments. However, all claims are still rejected for being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Applicant argues that receiving selections and other input at a user interface cannot practically be performed in the human mind, and that therefore the claims are not directed to a mental process. While the claim language certainly requires computing equipment (a processor is recited), this is not enough to make them significantly more than a set of mental and/or mathematical processes. As recited, the claims represent a set of steps which, though implemented on a computer, are capable of being performed by a person using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)).
Applicant further argues that any abstract idea would be integrated into a practical application that enables users to efficiently and correctly test calibration equipment. The examiner agrees that testing calibration equipment is practical; however, the mere description of testing some kind of calibration equipment by providing input and receiving output is virtually a description of the concept of calibration itself, which is abstract. Simply providing a basic computer template to perform calibration represents mere instructions to apply an exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Finally, Applicant’s amended step of selecting a reference standard does not move the claim toward eligibility at least because this also represents part of the general process of calibrating; calibration implies comparison to a standard, therefore using a computer to select a standard is just applying an abstract idea on a computer. See 101 rejections below.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered.
In Applicant Arguments, Applicant objects to the examiner’s Official Notice, which Applicant describes as: “that [it] is well known in the art to provide customized testing data sheet at a user interface using at least one processor.” In response, the examiner has herein provided the following references:
Bardi (US 20190159397 A1) describes calibrating the flow of a seed treatment fluid in a seed treater (¶1), discloses user interfaces for the calibration system (¶12-¶16), and states that the method can be implemented by a computer (¶44).
Bankhead (US 20060285122 A1) describes a surface profiling apparatus with a reference calibrator for calibrating the apparatus (Abstract). A user interface is provided for calibration (Fig. 10; ¶18). Calibration involves use of a computer (¶65; see also Fig. 3 including data processing and control apparatus).
Schwiesow (US 10838049 B1) describes calibrating a lidar and camera (Abstract). Calibration is implemented with a computer (Column 6, lines 19-31).
These references clearly evidence that the use of computers was well-known in the art of equipment calibration, which is what the examiner took Official Notice of in the previous Office Action. When combining the teachings of ITL with the teachings demonstrating that use of computers is well known in the art, one can conclude that providing a customized testing data sheet at a user interface using at least one processor would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Applicant argues that, as amended, the claims do not recite a mere computer but a process of receiving at a user interface, selection of a reference standard associated with an equipment item and assignable to test and/or output data. These are additional limitations which are addressed in the 103 rejections below. See 103 rejections below.
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, 3-8, 10-15 and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
At Step 1 of the 101 analysis, claims 1-14 are directed to one of the statutory categories of invention.
Claim 1 is rejected in response to the following analysis:
At Step 2A, Prong One, the abstract ideas are bolded in the copy of claim 1 below:
A method, comprising:
providing, at a user interface and using at least one processor associated with a calibration testing template, a customized testing data sheet comprising a plurality of test points, each test point of the plurality of test points including a target input indicator, a test data input cell, and a test data output cell;
receiving, at the user interface, a selection of at least one reference standard associated with an equipment item and assignable to a test data input and/or a test data output;
receiving, from the test data input cell and using the at least one processor, the test data input associated with the equipment item;
receiving, from the test data output cell and using the at least one processor, the test data output associated with the equipment item;
determining, using the at least one processor and based on the received test data input and test data output, an output error; and
determining, using the at least one processor and based on the determined output error, a status result of the equipment item.
Determining an output error and determining a status result of an equipment item are both mental or mathematical processes depending on the complexity of the operations involved.
At Step 2A, Prong Two, a number of additional elements are recited. A processor and user interface are recited, both of which are encompassed by supplying a general-purpose computer. A testing data sheet comprising points with target input indicators, reference standard selectors, input cells, and output cells is provided, and the processor receives data from the input and output cells. This describes data gathering which is used to perform the judicial exceptions. While the data is associated with the equipment item, the nature of the equipment item is unclear. With these considerations, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application, and the claim is directed to the abstract idea of determining an output error and status of an item.
At Step 2B, when considering the claim as a whole, claim 1 describes providing a template and computer for implementing error testing. Therefore, claim 1 does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions.
Claims 3 recites assigning reference standards to the test data input and/or output. This does not significantly clarify the field of use nor change the conclusions reached in the analysis of claim 1, therefore claim 3 is also rejected.
Claims 4-7 add elements to what is provided at the user interface, all of which are general elements commonly found on user interfaces. Furthermore, none of these additional limitations clarify the field of use or change the conclusions reached in the analysis of claim 1. Claims 4-7 are therefore also rejected.
Claims 8 and 15 recite a system and non-transient computer-readable storage medium, respectively, which are implemented to perform the method of claim 1. However, neither include limitations which change the conclusions reached in the analysis of claim 1, therefore claims 8 and 15 are also rejected.
Claims 10-14 and 17-21 recite the limitations of claims 3-7, respectively, and are rejected for the same reasons.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15 and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ITP (“ITD Laboratory Qualification Program—Appendix B” from Idaho Department of Transportation on itd.idaho.gov, https://apps.itd.idaho.gov/apps/manuals/labops/labops_290_appb.pdf with Wayback Machine Publication date of April 23, 2021 having the link: https://web.archive.org/web/20210423003017/https://apps.itd.idaho.gov/apps/manuals/labops/labops_290_appb.pdf; hereinafter “ITP”) in view of Bardi (US 20190159397 A1), Bankhead (US 20060285122 A1), and Schwiesow (US 10838049 B1), replacing the previous taking of official notice. Note that a screenshot from web.archive.org showing when ITD’s URL was crawled has been saved as a separate document.
Regarding claim 1, ITP discloses a calibration testing template comprising a customized testing data sheet (pg. 75, Worksheet 26). The data sheet comprises a plurality of test points (pg. 75, Section 1 includes multiple cells for inputting test information).
ITP also discloses a method of testing an equipment item (pg. 73, a “thermometer being verified,” hereafter referred to as a device under test (DUT)). The method includes providing test data input associated with the equipment item (pg. 73, “a temperature bath maintained at test temperature” is measured by the DUT), providing test data output associated with the equipment item (pg. 73, the temperature of the DUT is taken), determining an output error based on the test data input and test data output (pg. 73, a “certified thermometer” verifies the temperature bath, and a “difference between the two thermometers” is calculated and compared to a “scale error value”; the output error is based on the difference between what DUT ought to read and what it does read), and determining a status result of the equipment item based on the output error (pg. 73, if the error value is “outside the scale error maximum, repeat this procedure two more times and reject [the DUT] if difference remains outside of scale error maximum”).
ITP does not explicitly disclose providing the customized testing data sheet at a user interface using at least one processor. The examiner previously took official notice that the use of computers is well known in the art. This was traversed by the applicant, so the examiner cites Bardi, Bankhead, and Schwiesow as evidence.
Bardi (US 20190159397 A1) describes calibrating the flow of a seed treatment fluid in a seed treater (¶1), discloses user interfaces for the calibration system (¶12-¶16), and states that the method can be implemented by a computer (¶44). Bankhead (US 20060285122 A1) describes a surface profiling apparatus with a reference calibrator for calibrating the apparatus (Abstract). A user interface is provided for calibration (Fig. 10; ¶18). Calibration involves use of a computer (¶65; see also Fig. 3 including data processing and control apparatus). Schwiesow (US 10838049 B1) describes calibrating a lidar and camera (Abstract). Calibration is implemented with a computer (Column 6, lines 19-31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Bardi, Bankhead, and Schwiesow with the invention of ITP by causing the method to comprise providing at a user interface and using at least one processor associated with the calibration testing template, the customized testing data sheet, where each test point of the plurality of test points includes a test data input cell and a test data output cell; receiving, from the test data input cell and using the at least one processor, the test data input; receiving, from the test data output cell and using the at least one processor, the test data output; determining the output error using the at least one processor; and determining the status result using the at least one processor. Doing so would enable one to use a computer to facilitate calibration testing.
ITP in view of Bardi, Bankhead, and Schwiesow does not explicitly disclose including a target input indicator on the customized testing data sheet. However, ITP discloses a multi-point thermometer test to be verified at two temperature points (pg. 73, the DUT is verified “at two temperature points, the Ice Point and the Maximum Operation Temperature Point. (The Maximum Operation Temperature Point is defined as the highest temperature the thermometer will be used at to conduct testing.)”). In such a case, then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art practicing the invention of ITP in view of Bardi, Bankhead, and Schwiesow to cause each of the plurality of test points to include a target input indicator to indicate the desired temperatures for performing a test (Ice Point and Maximum Operation Temperature Point). Doing so would communicate to a user a desired set of values to measure when testing a device under test.
ITP in view of Bardi, Bankhead, and Schwiesow does not explicitly disclose receiving, at the user interface, a selection of at least one reference standard associated with the equipment item and assignable to a test data input and/or a test data output. However, ITP discloses DUT measurements with a reference standard (see pg. 73, under Inspection Equipment Required: a “Certified Thermometer” is used as a standard to compare with the DUT’s output). Furthermore, ITP discloses, in multiple test procedures, providing identification information of a particular certified thermometer used as a reference standard (see pg. 75, “Standard Used: Type: ITD Number:” in reference to the certified thermometer; see also Procedure 25, Unit Weight Bucket Standardization, pg. 72, “Standards Used:…Thermometer ITD Number:”). Thus, ITD teaches that multiple certified thermometers may be available, and that one must be chosen and recorded when using it for a test. When providing the testing template on a computer, enabling a user to select the certified thermometer used from a list of usable certified thermometers would help a user quickly fill out a testing sheet and would keep a record of a particular certified thermometer’s use in case it becomes faulty.
For the reasons above, then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art practicing the invention of ITP in view of Bardi, Bankhead, and Schwiesow to receive, at the user interface, a selection of at least one reference standard associated with the equipment item and assignable to a test data input and/or a test data output.
Regarding claim 8, the limitations of claim 1 are found in claim 8 and rejected for the same reasons. Claim 8 also recites that the one or more hardware processors are configured by machine-readable instructions to perform the method of claim 1. It would have been obvious to provide instructions to enable the one or more processors to perform their functions.
Regarding claim 15, the limitations of claim 15 are found in claim 8 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 17, ITP in view of Bardi, Bankhead, and Schwiesow teaches the limitations of claim 1, 8, and 15, and ITP further discloses that a first reference standard is assigned to the test data input (the “Ice Bath” is a temperature standard assignable to the input; at standard atmospheric pressure, water exists in equilibrium at its solid and liquid states at
0
°
Celsius) and a second reference standard (pg. 73, the “certified thermometer”) is assigned to the test data output (the output of the DUT is compared to the certified thermometer, thus it is a second reference standard assigned to the test data output), the first reference standard being different than the second reference standard (the ice bath and certified thermometer are different but both are standards).
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 18, ITP in view of Bardi, Bankhead, and Schwiesow teaches the limitations of claim 1, 8, and 15, and ITP further discloses a cell for a user to enter text associated with each of the plurality of test points (pg. 75, there are numerous cells (such as the “Remarks” cell) in which a user can write information pertaining to the test and which is therefore associated with the plurality of test points), and it would have been obvious to include the same functionality on the user interface.
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 19, ITP in view of Bardi, Bankhead, and Schwiesow teaches the limitations of claim 1, 8, and 15. While ITP does not explicitly provide a graphical representation of completed test points, it would have been obvious to provide such a representation on the user interface to help a user quickly view and understand the results of the completed test points.
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 20, ITP in view of Bardi, Bankhead, and Schwiesow teaches the limitations of claim 1, 8, and 15. While ITP does not explicitly provide a summary of completed test points, it would have been obvious to provide such a summary on the user interface to help a user quickly see which test points have been completed and what the completed results indicate about the DUT.
Regarding claims 7, 14, and 21, ITP in view of Bardi, Bankhead, and Schwiesow teaches the limitations of claim 1, 8, and 15. While ITP does not explicitly position the test data input cells and test data output cells of the plurality of test points along a single user interface, it would have been obvious to do so in order to consolidate all of the information in one place.
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 ETHAN WESLEY EDWARDS whose telephone number is (571)272-0266. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30am-5pm.
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, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. 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.
ETHAN WESLEY EDWARDS
Examiner
Art Unit 2857
/E.W.E./ Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/ANDREW SCHECHTER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857