DETAILED ACTION
The present application (Application No. 18/440,969), filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office action is in reply to filing dated 18 December, 2025.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 14, have been amended. Claims 2, 9, and 20 have been cancelled.
Claims 1, 3-8, and 10-19 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/5/2025, 11/14/2025, and 1/28/2026 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 and 10-19, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: In the instant case, claims 1, 3-8, and 10-19 are directed to a system (a sensor system), therefore the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A- Prong 1: Independent claim 1 is directed to a system for executing a method, comprising steps of: calibrating an environmental measurement value of a measurement target that is measured by a second environmental sensor, based on first calibration information for calibrating an environmental measurement value of a measurement target that is measured by a first environmental sensor, and transmitting a reward for calibration by a calibration unit.
Independent claim 1 is directed to a reward system for executing a method for providing a reward to a calibrator entity in response to calibrating one or more sensors. Accordingly, the claimed steps represent a method of organizing commercial interactions comprising advertising, marketing and sales activities, which falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” abstract idea grouping, wherein all the claim steps can be seen as being part of the abstract idea of providing price information on a display.
Step 2A- Prong 2: Additional elements include: a calibration unit ; a first environmental sensor , a second environmental sensor , and a reward transmission unit.
The independent claims comprise “sensors” performing generic sensing functions that are conventional for these types of devices. The independent claims additionally comprise a “calibration device”, but there is no information on how this device actually performs a calibration, beyond merely receiving and transmitting calibration information. The specification appears to be silent about any improvement in the operation of the “calibration device” or “sensors” themselves. The transmitting step can be performed by a general purpose computer without any novel programming or improvement in the operation of the computer itself. Accordingly, these additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform an abstract idea (mere instructions to apply the exception) as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f).
It is further noted that steps of calibrating and transmitting a reward are steps that can be performed by a human using a pen and paper, but for the but for the use of generic “calibration device” or “sensor” components, and generic computer components.
Accordingly, the additional elements when the claim elements are viewed individually and as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B: Based on the reasoning provided under Step 2A- Prong 2, the claims under Step 2B do not recite “significantly more” than the abstract idea. In addition, there has been no characterization of any additional element representative of insignificant extra-solution activity which needed to be reevaluated under Step 2B. At this point, either under the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping scenario where all the claim steps can be seen as being part of the abstract ideas, the analysis is terminated because the same analysis with respect to Step 2A Prong 2 applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
The dependent claims have been considered.
Dependent claims 3-8 and 10-19, recite different placement of units and modules and component placement (integral or separate) These dependent limitations merely narrows the abstract idea of calibrating and transmitting a reward. These claims likewise recite different aspects of reliability information which only just generally add limits to steps of: collecting/tracking data, analyzing data, making determinations/correlations, and displaying/presenting data, with no improved technology.
When considered as a whole, the same analysis with respect to Step 2A Prong 2 and step 2B, apply to these additional elements. They cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 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, 10-11, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fox et al. (US 2022/0003581) (hereinafter “Fox3581”), in view of Kim et al. (KR 2020/0105093).
Examiner’s note: For the purpose of examining the instant claims, an PE2E Search Tool English machine-translation of Kim et al. (KR 2020/0105093) (hereinafter “Kim5093”) is used.
Regarding claim 1 Fox3581 discloses:
A calibration device which may include a handheld device, may be configured to calibrate a remote sensing device by first sensing measurement data related to one or more parameters that the remote sensing device is configured to measure (see at least Fox3581, ¶26-27).
A calibration device, such as a portable calibration tool, may sense data relative to a particular measurement parameter of an environment in which a remote sensing device is situated. In such examples, the calibration device may be calibrated previously in another environment, such as in a laboratory environment or other development environment. The calibration device may then utilize the sensed data to cause an adjustment to the remote sensing device. (see at least Fox3581, ¶4).
Calibration device 10 may be implemented as a handheld device that allows the calibration device 10 to be transported or carried around by a user (see at least Fox3581, fig. 1, ¶32). In some examples, calibration device may be configured for personal in-home use, where the calibration device 10 may be a handheld device of an end-user customer (see at least Fox3581, fig. 1, ¶32,).
Calibration device 10 may include one or more reliable sensors 18A or 18B (in the sense that the sensors have calibrations that are traceable to primary standards from the National Bureau of Standards (NBS), National Physical Laboratory (NPL), or other recognized sources for generation of primary standards (see at least Fox3581, fig. 1, ¶39,).
Calibration device 10 may include internal sensor(s) 18A, and in some examples, calibration device 10 may additionally, or alternatively, interface with external sensor(s) 18B. Sensor(s) 18 (internal or external to calibration device 10) may sense measurement data 21 of an environment. In an illustrative and non-limiting example, sensor(s) 18 may obtain a sample of air from an environment. Calibration device 10 may determine measurement data 21 based on the sample of air via sensor(s) 18 sensing contaminants in the sample of air. Calibration device 10 may store measurement data 21 to storage device 20. Internal sensor(s) 18A may include pressure sensors, temperature sensors, altitude sensors, humidity sensors, air quality sensors, optical sensors, accelerometers, etc. As described with reference to FIG. 2, calibration device 10 may initially calibrate internal sensor(s) 18A to a particular calibration standard prior to serving as a calibration device for calibrating remote sensing device(s) 80. (see at least Fox3581, fig. 1, ¶40,).
While external sensor(s) 18B may, in some examples, be remote sensing devices, external sensor(s) 18B may include sensors that have already been calibrated using a primary or secondary calibration standard. (see at least Fox3581, fig. 1, ¶41,).
A calibration device is disclosed that is configured to communicate wirelessly with a remote sensing device while the remote sensing device remains affixed to a particular structure (e.g., a vehicle, building, home, etc.). The remote sensing device may be affixed to the structure in a permanent or semi-permanent installation.
A calibration device (a calibration unit) which may include a handheld device, may be configured to calibrate a remote sensing device by first sensing measurement data related to one or more parameters that the remote sensing device is configured to measure.
(an environmental measurement value of a measurement target that is measured by a second environmental sensor). The calibration device may include a handheld device that includes one or more calibrated sensors (a first environmental sensor) configured to measure one or more parameters of an environment (measurement target). The calibration device may be used to calibrate the remote sensing device (second sensor device comprising a second environmental sensor). In an example, the calibration device may communicate measurement data (based on first calibration information for calibrating an environmental measurement value of a measurement target that is measured by a first environmental sensor) to the remote sensing device that the calibration device determines is relevant to the remote sensing device, such as by determining one or more parameters that the remote sensing device is ordinarily configured to measure in a commissioned state, such as a state where the remote sensing device is in use or is in a condition for use in the overarching system. (see at least Fox3581, ¶26,).
In an illustrative example, the calibration device may be configured to calibrate a remote sensing device by first sensing measurement data related to one or more parameters that the remote sensing device is configured to measure. In turn, the calibration device may wirelessly communicate the measurement data to the remote sensing device. In this way, the calibration device may signal to the remote sensing device measurement data that a calibrated sensing device should be sensing in the environment. (see at least Fox3581, ¶27).
Fox3581 does not disclose: (a reward transmission unit which transmits a reward for calibration by a calibration unit).
Kim5093 discloses: The present invention relates to a program for providing a reward for sharing environmental information, and more particularly, when environmental information sensed through an environmental sensor is received from a user terminal, a reward for sharing the received environmental information is provided. (see at least Kim5093, abstract, ¶2:11-14). Referring to FIG. 1, a configuration of a system for providing a reward for sharing environmental information includes a user terminal 100 and an environment information management server 200 (see at least Kim5093, ¶3:5-8).
When the environmental information management server 200 collects environmental information received from the user terminal 100 and is used to derive an analysis result of environmental information for each area, the environmental information received from the user terminal 100 is shared. By determining, a reward for sharing environmental information may be provided to a user who uses the user terminal 100. That is, when environmental information is received from the user terminal 100, the environmental information management server 200 may determine that the received environmental information has been shared, and provide a reward in exchange for sharing the environmental information. (see at least Kim5093, ¶4:25-33).
The reward providing unit 220 may differentially provide a reward according to the type of environmental information received from the user terminal 100, and the related content will be described in detail with reference to Table 1. (see at least Kim5093, ¶6:6-8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the reward features of Kim5093 in the sensor calibration system of Fox3581, since (see Kim5093, ¶9:21-26, “by providing a reward when sharing environmental information, it is possible to induce sharing of environmental information, thereby increasing the utilization of an environmental sensor. In addition, according to an embodiment of the present invention, by differentially providing rewards according to the type of environmental information, it is possible to diversify the types of environmental sensors that sense environmental information.”).
System comprising computing devices, processors, servers, memory, computer readable media, interfaces, modules and software instructions stored in memory that enable the system to execute the steps of the method over network communications and to enable interaction between participants and the system ((see at least Kim5093, fig. 1-2, ¶5:4-12). (processor) (memory) (computer readable media).
The environment information collection unit 210 and the reward providing unit 220 may be program modules or hardware capable of communicating with external devices. These program modules or hardware may be included in the environmental information management server 200 or other devices capable of communicating with the environment information management server 200 in the form of operating systems, application program modules, and other program modules, and may be physically stored on various known storage devices. I can. Meanwhile, such program modules or hardware include routines, subroutines, programs, objects, components, data structures, etc. that perform specific tasks to be described later or execute specific abstract data types according to the present invention, but are not limited thereto. (see at least Kim5093, fig. 1-2, ¶5:4-12).
Regarding claim 3, Fox3581 in view of Kim5093 discloses: All the limitations of the corresponding parent claims (claims 1-2) as per the above rejection statements.
Kim5093 discloses: Reward providing unit 220 (second sensor device has the reward transmission unit) (see at least Kim5093, fig. 2, ¶5:1-3). When the environmental information is received from the user terminal 100, the reward providing unit 220 may determine that the received environmental information is shared and provide a reward in exchange for sharing the environmental information (see at least Kim5093, fig. 2, ¶6:3-5). (wherein the second sensor device has the reward transmission unit).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the reward features and reward providing unit 220 of Kim5093 in the sensor calibration system of Fox3581, since (see Kim5093, ¶9:21-26, “by providing a reward when sharing environmental information, it is possible to induce sharing of environmental information, thereby increasing the utilization of an environmental sensor. In addition, according to an embodiment of the present invention, by differentially providing rewards according to the type of environmental information, it is possible to diversify the types of environmental sensors that sense environmental information.”).
Regarding claim 4, Fox3581 in view of Kim5093 discloses: All the limitations of the corresponding parent claims (claims 1-2;) as per the above rejection statements.
Kim5093 discloses: Environment information management server 200 (see at least Kim5093, fig. 1, ¶3:7-8). The environment information management server 200 according to an embodiment of the present invention may include an environment information collection unit 210 and a reward providing unit 220 (see at least Kim5093, fig. 2, ¶5:1-3). (a server having the reward transmission unit).
When the environmental sensor is mounted on the user terminal 100, the user terminal 100 can perform both sensing and transmitting functions to the environmental information management server 200, and the environmental sensor is the external device 110 When mounted on, the user terminal 100 may receive environmental information from the external device 110 and transmit the received environmental information to the environmental information management server 200. (see at least Kim5093, fig. 1, ¶3:24-29).
Regarding claim 5, Fox3581 in view of Kim5093 discloses: All the limitations of the corresponding parent claims (claims 1-2;) as per the above rejection statements.
As explained in the rejection of parent claims 1 and 2, Fox3581 teaches a calibration device 10 that acquires a calibrated environmental measurement value at/of a target environmental location and transmits this calibrated environmental measurement value to remote sensor devices calibrates.
Therefore, Fox3581 teaches: (wherein the measurement target of which the environmental measurement value is measured by the first environmental sensor, and the measurement target of which the environmental measurement value is measured by the second environmental sensor, are the same as each other).
Regarding claim 6, Fox3581 in view of Kim5093 discloses: All the limitations of the corresponding parent claims (claims 1-2 and 5;) as per the above rejection statements.
Fox3581 further discloses: In particular, a calibration device is disclosed that may be used to calibrate a remote sensing device associated with or otherwise affixed to a structure, such as a vehicle, building, or other installation environment (see at least Fox3581, ¶5-6, 22, 26).
Regarding claim 7, Fox3581 in view of Kim5093 discloses: All the limitations of the corresponding parent claims (claims 1-2) as per the above rejection statements.
Fox3581 further discloses: Reliable calibration based on reliability standards (see at least Fox3581, ¶39, 126).
Regarding claim 8, Fox3581 in view of Kim5093 discloses: All the limitations of the corresponding parent claims (claims 1-2 and 7) as per the above rejection statements.
Fox3581 further discloses: (wherein the second sensor device performs a control in accordance with the calibration reliability of the first calibration information or the reliability information).
The remote sensing device may apply the one or more adjusted transform settings to then sense measurement data that properly coincides with the measurement data received from the calibration device. In such examples, the remote sensing device may be configured to adjust internal settings such that the remote sensing device senses measurement data that aligns with measurement data received from the calibration device. In some examples, the remote sensing device may control the alignment to achieve a predetermined degree of accuracy as determined from a comparison of the measurement data received from the calibration device and the measurement data obtained via one or more sensors of the remote sensing device. In such examples, the remote sensing device may adjust various calibration settings to satisfy a predefined calibration threshold without detaching from the structural environment in which the remote sensing device is commissioned to operate. (see at least Fox3581, ¶30).
Regarding claim 10, Fox3581 in view of Kim5093 discloses: All the limitations of the corresponding parent claims (claims 1-2 and 7) as per the above rejection statements.
Fox3581 further discloses: Reliable calibration based on reliability standards (see at least Fox3581, ¶39, 126).
Device calibration data 22 may include tracing data for calibration device 10 that allows another device to verify that calibration device 10 is calibrated to a predefined standard (e.g., a primary calibration standard). In some examples, the tracing data may include timing or historical data for the calibration of calibration device 10. (see at least Fox3581, ¶50).
Regarding claim 11, Fox3581 in view of Kim5093 discloses: All the limitations of the corresponding parent claims (claims 1-2, 7 and 10) as per the above rejection statements.
Regarding the calibration methodology of Fox3581 implemented using a “calibration device 10” (first sensor devices), it is noted that this methodology is not restricted or limited to just one single calibration device 10, but rather the same steps apply and do not change for one or more calibration devices.
Accordingly, even if it could be argued that Fox3581 does not anticipate the limitation: (a plurality of the first sensor devices, wherein each of the calibration information transmission units in the plurality of first sensor devices transmits the first calibration information, and the calibration reliability or the reliability information of each of the first sensor devices, the storage device stores each of the calibration reliability or the reliability information that is transmitted by each of the calibration information transmission units, and the reward transmission unit transmits information indicating that the first calibration information is desired to be transmitted, to the first sensor device that has transmitted the reliability information exceeding a threshold value of the calibration reliability, in the history of the calibration reliability or the reliability information);
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “a plurality of the first sensor devices” to practice the calibration methodology of Fox3581 using more than one “calibration device 10”, to enable different persons/technicians to perform calibrations of remote sensors and gaining the convenience of facilitating this calibration job.
Calibration threshold (see at least Fox3581, ¶30, “In some examples, the remote sensing device may control the alignment to achieve a predetermined degree of accuracy as determined from a comparison of the measurement data received from the calibration device and the measurement data obtained via one or more sensors of the remote sensing device. In such examples, the remote sensing device may adjust various calibration settings to satisfy a predefined calibration threshold without detaching from the structural environment in which the remote sensing device is commissioned to operate.”).
Since in Fox3581, calibration is determined based on meeting a calibration threshold, and the combined Fox3581/Kim5093 combination formulated in the rejection of claim 1 teaches the reward features of Kim5093 implemented in the sensor calibration system of Fox3581, then it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further implement the a calibration threshold requirement of Fox3581 for providing the reward, in this parent Fox3581/Kim5093 combination since the reward now becomes more closely associated to the reliability of the calibration or calibration signal transmission.
Claims 12, 13, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fox et al. (US 2022/0003581) (hereinafter “Fox3581”), in view of Kim et al. (KR 2020/0105093), and further in view of over Masson et al. (US 2017/0208493) (hereinafter “Masson8493”).
Regarding claim 12, 13, Fox3581 in view of Kim5093 substantially discloses the claimed invention as per the above rejection statements.
Masson8493 discloses:
Additionally or alternatively, the system manager 395 may determine that that an individual sensor 111 is in need of calibration (e.g., based on a calibration history of the sensor and/or quality of data from the sensor) and may send a message (e.g., instruction) to the calibration device to perform the calibration of the sensor. (see at least Masson8493, ¶72).
Further, additionally or alternatively, a calibration history of the sensor and the calibration requirements of the sensor 111 may be used to determine if the sensor is in need of calibration. (see at least Masson8493, ¶96).
In other examples, sensed data of lower quality may still be used to contribute to a calibration, but its effect may be given a reduced weight or significance to a calibration model. After determining a directionality of calibration using the determined difference in sensed data quality, the method 600 may proceed to block 625. (see at least Masson8493, ¶106).
The calibration device may apply weighting to the sensed data collected from individual sensors 111 based on such factors as a location of the sensors 111 or a difference in location between various individual sensors 111 and a sensor 111 to be calibrated. (see at least Masson8493, ¶121).
Accordingly, even if it could be argued that Fox3581 (and/or the parent Fox3581/Kim5093 combination) is not used to disclose: (a plurality of the first sensor devices, wherein each of the calibration information transmission units in the plurality of first sensor devices transmits the first calibration information, and the calibration reliability or the reliability information of each of the first sensor devices, the receiving unit receives the first calibration information, and the calibration reliability or the reliability information of each of the plurality of first sensor devices, the calibration unit weights the first calibration information in each of the plurality of first sensor devices according to the calibration reliability, and calibrates the environmental measurement value that is measured by the second environmental sensor, according to weighting of the first calibration information, and the reward transmission unit transmits the reward in accordance with the calibration reliability);
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further implement the weight features and calibration history of Masson8493 into the calibration/reward methodology of the parent Fox3581/Kim5093 combination since with weighting ((see at least Masson8493, ¶106), “sensed data of lower quality may still be used to contribute to a calibration, but its effect may be given a reduced weight or significance to a calibration model. After determining a directionality of calibration using the determined difference in sensed data quality, the method 600 may proceed to block 625.”)
Claims 14-19, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fox et al. (US 2022/0003581) (hereinafter “Fox3581”), in view of Kim et al. (KR 2020/0105093), and further in view of over Fennell et al. (US 2010/0014626) (hereinafter “Fennell4626”).
Regarding claims 14, 15, 16, 17, Fox3581 in view of Kim5093 substantially discloses the claimed invention as per the above rejection statements.
Even if it could be argued that Fox3581 (and/or the parent Fox3581/Kim5093 combination) is not used to disclose: (wherein the reward transmission unit transmits a recommended time at which the calibration unit calibrates the environmental measurement value, and when the calibration unit calibrates the environmental measurement value at the recommended time, the reward transmission unit transmits the reward in accordance with the calibration of the environmental measurement value at the recommended time).
Fennell4626 discloses:
A method provides a way to determine elapsed (or remaining) sensor life for a particular sensor, for example, by a comparison between the stored first count and the incremental count based on periodic cycles (see at least Fennell4626, ¶6). The method comprises a data processing device configured to determine elapsed life of a sensor is provided (see at least Fennell4626, ¶10).
The data processing device can further include a storage unit such as a non-volatile memory unit to store the count. The non-volatile memory unit can be disposed in a transmitter or a receiver unit. Further, the data processing device can include an output unit for outputting a message, such as date and time of sensor expiration, data and time for next calibration, or a value derived from the count information, such as remaining life of the sensor. method further includes displaying a value derived or otherwise associated with the stored count, and/or the incremented count on a display unit. Further, the output unit can be configured to display an alarm when a calibration is needed, and/or when the sensor is close to expiration. The output unit includes one or more of a visual, audible or tactile output. In accordance with one embodiment, the display unit can be a receiver or, if desired, a transmitter. In one embodiment, the display is a OLED color display. (see at least Fennell4626, ¶11).
The data and time for next calibration, represents a recommendation (recommended time at which the calibration unit calibrates the environmental measurement value).
Since in Fox3581 calibration is determined based on meeting a calibration threshold, and the Fox3581/Kim5093 combination formulated in the rejection of the parent claim 1 teaches the reward features of Kim5093 implemented in the sensor calibration system of Fox3581 (reward associated with sensor calibration,), then it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further implement the date and time for next sensor calibration of Fennell4626 into the calibration/reward methodology of the parent Fox3581/Kim5093 combination, since information of date and time for next sensor calibration representative of a recommended time at which the calibration unit calibrates the environmental measurement value and display an alarm when a calibration is needed, would ensure that the sensor is timely re-calibrated before it gives an erroneous signal.
Regarding claim 18, Fox3581 in view of Kim5093 discloses: All the limitations of the corresponding parent claims (claims 1-2 and 14) as per the above rejection statements.
As explained in those parent rejections, the Fox3581/Kim5093 combination formulated in the rejection of the claims 1 and 2, teaches: (transmit the first calibration information is input to the first sensor device, (therefore a request to transmit is implicit); the calibration information transmission unit transmits the first calibration information, and when the receiving unit receives the first calibration information based on the transmission command at the recommended time, the reward transmission unit transmits the reward in accordance with the calibration of the environmental measurement value; and reward in relation to the transmission of the first calibration information based on the transmission command),
and further, the Fox3581/Kim5093/Fennell4626 combination formulated in the rejection of claim 14, teaches: A recommended time (at the recommended time).
Therefore, the parent Fox3581/Kim5093/ Fennell4626 combination teaches this above claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 19, Fox3581 in view of Kim5093 discloses: All the limitations of the corresponding parent claims (claims 1 and 14) as per the above rejection statements.
Regarding the calibration methodology of Fox3581 implemented using a “calibration device 10” (first sensor devices), it is noted that this methodology is not restricted or limited to just one single calibration device 10, but rather the same steps apply and do not change for one or more calibration devices. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “a plurality of the first sensor devices” to practice the calibration methodology of Fox3581 using more than one “calibration device 10”, to enable different persons/technicians to perform calibrations of remote sensors and gaining the convenience of facilitating this calibration job.
The Fox3581/Kim5093/Fennell4626 combination formulated in the rejection of claim 14, teaches: A recommended time (at the recommended time).
Therefore, the parent Fox3581/Kim5093/Fennell4626 combination teaches this claimed limitation.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20230182766 (Chou).
Reasons for maintaining both 101 & 103 rejections
Claim 1: a sensor system comprising:
a first sensor device having
a calibration information transmission unit which transmits first calibration information for calibrating an environmental measurement value of a measurement target that is measured by a first environmental sensor; and
a second sensor device having
a receiving unit which receives the first calibration information that is transmitted by the calibration information transmission unit, and
a calibration unit which calibrates an environmental measurement value of a measurement target that is measured by a second environmental sensor, based on the first calibration information; and
a reward transmission unit which transmits a reward for calibration by a calibration unit, wherein the reward transmission unit transmits a second control signal for performing a control on the first sensor device in accordance with the reward.
35 U.S.C. §101 Rejection
Claims 1, 3-8 and 10-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.
Step 1: Statutory Subject Matter
The claims are directed to a sensor system—a machine—falling within a statutory category.
Step 2A Prong One: Judicial Exception
The claims recite transmitting calibration information, receiving calibration information, calibrating sensor measurements, and transmitting rewards based on reliability and timing. These steps constitute:
Methods of organizing human activity: Incentivizing participation through rewards.
Mental processes: Weighting reliability, storing calibration history, distributing rewards.
Abstract idea: Managing and transmitting information related to calibration and rewards.
Step 2A Prong Two: Practical Application
The claims do not recite any improvement to the functioning of a computer or other technology. The sensor devices, transmission units, calibration units, and reward transmission units are generic devices performing routine functions. The calibration process and reward mechanism merely implement the abstract idea using generic hardware.
Step 2B: Inventive Concept
The claims do not include additional elements sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. The hardware components are generic and perform conventional functions. The combination of transmitting calibration information, weighting reliability, and transmitting rewards is routine and lacks an inventive concept.
Specific Analysis
The claimed “reward transmission unit” merely automates the distribution of rewards using generic hardware.
The “calibration information transmission unit” and “calibration unit” perform routine data transmission and calculation steps.
The storage of calibration reliability and weighting of calibration information are abstract data management steps.
Therefore, the claims are directed to a method/system for transmitting calibration information, calibrating environmental sensor measurements, and transmitting rewards based on calibration reliability and timing. The steps recited constitute methods of organizing human activity (incentivizing participation) and mental processes (weighting reliability, storing calibration history, distributing rewards), which are abstract ideas.
The claim does not recite any improvement to the functioning of a computer or sensor device; the recited hardware components are generic and perform conventional functions. The calibration process and reward mechanism merely implement the abstract idea using generic hardware. The claim does not include additional elements sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
Accordingly, claims 1, 3-8 and 10-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.
35 U.S.C. §101 Rejection
Claim 1 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being obvious over Fox et al. (US 2022/0003581 A1) in view of Kim et al. (KR 2020/0105093 A).
Fox teaches a system for remote calibration of environmental sensors, including transmission of calibration data, receipt by a remote sensor, calibration adjustment, and storage of calibration and reliability data (see, e.g., [0070]-[0086], Figs. 1, 3, 5). Fox does not teach providing a reward for calibration data sharing.
Kim teaches providing a reward for sharing environmental data, with the reward differentiated by information type, frequency, accuracy, and history (see at least Kim5093, abstract, ¶2:11-14, Tables 1–2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the reward mechanism of Kim with the remote calibration system of Fox to incentivize sharing of calibration information, as both references are in the field of environmental sensing and data sharing, and Kim expressly teaches the benefit of rewarding users for participation.
Therefore, all limitations of claim 1 are met by the combination of Fox and Kim.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAHD A OBEID whose telephone number is (571)270-3324. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm teleworking.
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.
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.
/FAHD A OBEID/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627