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 RCE filing dated 10 April, 2026.
Claims 1, 5-8, 10-18, have been amended.
Claim 21 has been added; Claims 2, 9, and 20 have been cancelled.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-19, and 21 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/18/2026 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, 10-19, and 21 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, 10-19, and 21 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, 10-19, and 21 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, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fox et al. (US 2022/0003581) (hereinafter “Fox3581”), in view of Mayer (US 2014/0244198), and further 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, wherein the reward transmission unit transmits a second control signal for performing a control on the first sensor device in accordance with the reward.
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).
Fox3581 does not disclose: the calibration information transmission unit transmits a first calibration reliability of the first sensor device, and the calibration unit compares the first calibration reliability with a second calibration reliability of the second sensor device, and calibrates based on the first calibration information the second environmental measurement value, only when the first calibration reliability is higher than the second calibration reliability.
Mayer discloses: Assigning “accuracy indicators” to each sensor. Calibration decisions are made subject to the accuracy indicators associated with the first and second electronic sensor. If the first sensor is likely to have a higher accuracy than the second, no recalibration of the first sensor might be carried out at all. If both have similar expected accuracy, recalibration of both sensors may be carried out, e.g., by averaging (Mayer, ¶ 50).
“If the two sensors sense the same chemical environment, they should yield the same readings if properly calibrated. If the readings differ significantly, this may be an indication that at least one of the sensors is miscalibrated and should be recalibrated. Recalibration is carried out by deriving at least one new calibration value for this sensor. Many possibilities exist for how to derive the new calibration value(s). For instance, if it is known that the second sensor is properly calibrated (e.g., if the second sensor is a reference sensor having a known precision), the calibration value(s) of the first sensor may be adjusted such that the reading of the first sensor will be substantially identical to the reading of the second sensor.” (Mayer, ¶ 11).
“The calibration values (which may also be called compensation values) that are derived by the present method may include any parameter related to the transfer function of the sensor. … In particular, the calibration values may include any of the following: an offset parameter (offset compensation value) related to an offset reading in the absence of an analyte to which the first chemical sensor is sensitive; and a sensitivity parameter related to a sensitivity of the first sensor to a concentration of at least one analyte to which the first chemical sensor is sensitive.” (Mayer, ¶ 51).
“Each of these sensors may comprise one or more semiconductor sensor elements. … For instance, it may be known that the second sensor is a reference sensor whose reading is accurate to within a certain narrow range, or it may be known that one of the sensors has not been operated for an extended period of time or has been exposed to a poisonous or otherwise incompatible environment, which would make it highly likely that recalibration is necessary and that the reading of the sensor without recalibration would be inaccurate. … In order to take such factors into account, each of the first chemical sensor and the second chemical sensor may be assigned an accuracy indicator. … The at least one calibration value for the first chemical sensor may then be determined subject to the accuracy indicators associated with the first and second electronic sensor. For instance, if the accuracy indicators indicate that the first sensor is likely to have a higher accuracy than the second sensor, no recalibration of the first sensor might be carried out at all.” (Mayer, ¶ 88).
Mayer teaches the principle of using reliability/accuracy indicators to make calibration decisions. Mayer teaches not recalibrating a sensor if its reliability is higher than the other’s.
It would be an obvious design choice, in view of Mayer, to set a system rule that “calibration is performed only if the transmitting sensor’s reliability is higher than the receiving sensor’s reliability,” since Mayer’s logic is to only use a more reliable sensor as a reference for recalibration.
Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) could reasonably be motivated by Mayer’s teachings to implement a gating step as claimed, especially to avoid propagating calibration errors from less reliable sensors.
Mayer, at ¶¶ 50 & 88, explicitly teaches assigning “accuracy indicators” (i.e., reliability/confidence metrics) to each sensor, and using these indicators to determine whether and how recalibration is performed. Mayer teaches that if the first sensor is likely to have a higher accuracy than the second sensor, recalibration of the first sensor might not be carried out at all, and only the less reliable sensor is recalibrated. It would have been obvious to a POSITA, in view of Mayer’s teachings, to implement a gating step in which calibration of a sensor is performed only if the transmitting sensor’s reliability is higher than the receiving sensor’s reliability, as this would ensure that only more reliable calibration data is used for recalibration, thereby improving system accuracy and robustness.
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.
Regarding Claim 21, The sensor system according to claim 1, wherein a providing unit of the second sensor device vibrates the second sensor device only when the first calibration reliability is higher than the second calibration reliability (¶ 69).
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 Mayer (US 2014/0244198), and in view of Kim et al. (KR 2020/0105093), and further in view of over Masson et al. (US 2017/0208493) (hereinafter “Masson8493”).
Regarding claims 12 and 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 Mayer (US 2014/0244198), and 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.
Response To Arguments/Remarks
Applicant's arguments filed 4/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding 103: Applicant's arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks filed April 10, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 3-8, 10-19, and 21 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Fox et al. (US 2022/0003581) (hereinafter “Fox3581”), in view of Mayer (US 2014/0244198), and further in view of Kim et al. (KR 2020/0105093).
Regarding 101: Applicant’s arguments filed in response to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been considered but are not persuasive. The rejection of claims 1, 3-8, 10-19, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
Response to applicant’s argument that the claims do not recite certain methods of organizing human activity
Applicant argues that the claims do not relate to “certain methods of organizing human activity” under Step 2A, Prong One. This argument is not persuasive.
Claim 1 recites, inter alia: “a reward transmission unit which transmits a reward for calibration by a calibration unit” and: “the reward transmission unit transmits a second control signal for performing a control on the first sensor device in accordance with the reward.”
The specification expressly describes the reward as including commercially recognizable incentives, such as: “a point, a coupon such as a gift certificate or a discount coupon, a credit score, or the like”See specification ¶ [0070]. The specification further explains that the reward may be provided for contributing calibration information to a store or commercial entity. See, e.g., specification ¶¶ [0066]-[0070], [0099], [0122]-[0124], [0133]-[0141].
Thus, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claimed reward transmission features reasonably encompass a commercial incentive arrangement for inducing or compensating a user or device for providing calibration information. Such reward/incentive administration falls within the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity, including commercial interactions, advertising, marketing, sales activities, and managing business relationships.
The claims also recite abstract evaluation and decision-making, including:
“the calibration unit compares the first calibration reliability with a second calibration reliability of the second sensor device” and: “calibrates based on the first calibration information the second environmental measurement value, only when the first calibration reliability is higher than the second calibration reliability.” Comparing reliability values and deciding whether to use calibration information based on that comparison constitutes an observation, evaluation, judgment, or decision that can be performed mentally or with pen and paper. Accordingly, these limitations also recite a mental process under Step 2A, Prong One.
In addition, the calibration and weighting limitations of the dependent claims recite mathematical/data-processing concepts, such as weighting calibration information according to reliability and calibrating a measurement value based on the weighted information. See, e.g., claims 12 and 13.
Accordingly, the claims recite judicial exceptions under Step 2A, Prong One.
Response to applicant’s reliance on Ex Parte Desjardins and revised MPEP guidance
Applicant relies on Ex Parte Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024-000567, and revisions to MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.04(d)(1), 2106.05(a), and 2106.05(f), arguing that the present claims are analogous and integrate any judicial exception into a practical application. This argument is not persuasive because the present claims are materially distinguishable from the claims at issue in Desjardins.
In Desjardins, as characterized by Applicant, the claims and specification addressed a specific technological problem in machine-learning technology, namely “catastrophic forgetting” in continual learning systems. The claims reflected the disclosed technical improvement by reciting adjustment of parameter values of the machine-learning model to optimize performance on a subsequent task while protecting performance on a prior task. Thus, the claimed limitations were directed to how the machine-learning model itself operated.
Here, by contrast, the claims do not recite a comparable specific improvement to sensor hardware, sensor circuitry, computer functionality, network functionality, or a specific calibration algorithm. Claim 1 broadly recites that a calibration unit: “calibrates a second environmental measurement value … based on the first calibration information” and further recites that calibration occurs: “only when the first calibration reliability is higher than the second calibration reliability.”
These limitations do not specify how the second environmental sensor is improved, how the calibration algorithm technically operates, how sensor drift is technically modeled or corrected, how error is reduced by a specific signal-processing technique, or how the sensor device hardware or computer system is improved. Rather, the claim recites the desired result of calibration using broadly defined calibration information and a reliability comparison.
The specification confirms that the claimed components are described at a high level of generality. For example:
the control units may be generic CPUs, specification ¶¶ [0042], [0052], [0063];
the sensor devices may be mobile terminals, specification ¶¶ [0042], [0056];
the providing units may be displays, speakers, or vibration units, specification ¶¶ [0043], [0093];
the environmental sensors may be known gas sensors, CO₂ sensors, NOx sensors, SOx sensors, PM sensors, temperature sensors, humidity sensors, or pressure sensors, specification ¶¶ [0028]-[0030], [0046]-[0047], [0057];
the system may be implemented on a generic computer including a CPU, RAM, display, communication interface, storage, input/output controller, ROM, and keyboard, specification ¶¶ [0157]-[0167].
Unlike Desjardins, the present claims do not recite a particular technical mechanism that changes how the environmental sensor itself operates or how the computing system itself functions. The claims instead recite collecting, transmitting, comparing, weighting, and using calibration-related data, together with reward transmission and control signaling associated with the reward.
Accordingly, even applying the MPEP guidance cited by Applicant, the claims do not reflect a specific technological improvement comparable to the improvement found in Desjardins.
Response to applicant’s argument that the reward is a technical control parameter
Applicant argues that the claimed: “reward for calibration by a calibration unit” is not merely an incentive imposed by a human on a business, but rather is: “a function of a calibration mechanism (e.g., a control parameter) to dynamic adjust reliability between sensors and device control.” This argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claims.
Claim 1 does not recite that the reward dynamically adjusts reliability between sensors. Claim 1 recites that the reward transmission unit transmits a reward and transmits a second control signal for performing a control on the first sensor device in accordance with the reward. Separately, claim 1 recites that the calibration information transmission unit transmits a first calibration reliability, and that the calibration unit compares the first calibration reliability with a second calibration reliability.
The claim does not recite that the reward modifies, calculates, updates, or technically controls the calibration reliability values. Nor does the claim recite that the reward changes the sensor calibration algorithm, changes sensor hardware operation, modifies an analog front end, changes an AD conversion operation, or adjusts a physical sensor parameter.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, and in light of the specification, the “reward” encompasses nontechnical commercial incentives such as points, coupons, gift certificates, discount coupons, credit scores, and URLs for obtaining coupons. See specification ¶ [0070]. The fact that a reward is transmitted by a device or associated with a control signal does not convert the reward into a technological improvement.
Accordingly, Applicant’s characterization of the reward as a technical calibration-control parameter is not supported by the claim language.
Step 2A, Prong Two — the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application
Applicant argues that, even if the claims recite an abstract idea, the claims integrate the exception into a practical application. This argument is not persuasive.
The additional elements recited in claim 1 include a first sensor device, a second sensor device, environmental sensors, a calibration information transmission unit, a receiving unit, a calibration unit, and a reward transmission unit. These elements are used to transmit data, receive data, compare reliability values, calibrate a measurement value based on received information, and transmit a reward or control signal.
The claims do not recite a particular technological improvement to the environmental sensors or sensor devices. The claimed calibration is recited functionally and result-orientedly:
“calibrates a second environmental measurement value … based on the first calibration information.”
The claim does not require any particular correction equation, error-compensation model, filtering technique, drift-correction circuit, calibration gas protocol, sensor-specific signal-conditioning architecture, or transformation of a physical article. The claimed “environmental measurement value” is data, and adjusting or calibrating that value constitutes manipulation of data.
The claim also does not improve the functioning of a computer itself. The claims do not recite improved memory usage, improved processing architecture, improved communication protocol, improved network security, reduced latency, improved data structure, or any comparable computer-functionality improvement. Instead, the claims use generic computer and communication components as tools to implement the abstract reward, reliability-comparison, and calibration-data concepts.
The recited environmental sensors provide a field of use and a source of data, but the claim does not improve the sensors themselves. Data gathering from sensors, transmission of data, comparison of data, and output of data or rewards are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application where, as here, the claims do not recite a specific technological improvement.
Accordingly, the claims do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two.
Response to applicant’s argument under MPEP § 2106.05(g)
Applicant argues that the claims relate to “significant extra-solution activity” because:
the recitations are not well known, as allegedly evidenced by the absence of prior art rejections;
the recitations are significant due to practical applications of the embodiments; and
the recitations are more than necessary data gathering and outputting.
These arguments are not persuasive.
First, the absence of a prior art rejection under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 or 103 does not establish eligibility under § 101. Patent eligibility, novelty, and nonobviousness are separate statutory inquiries. A claim may be novel or nonobvious and still be directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. See, e.g., Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 90 (2012).
Second, the presence of a useful or practical business implementation does not establish integration into a practical application. The relevant inquiry is whether the claim imposes meaningful technological limitations on the judicial exception. Here, the claims broadly recite the use of generic sensor devices, generic receiving/transmitting units, generic storage, generic reliability comparison, generic calibration based on received information, and generic reward transmission.
Third, the claims’ additional activities remain data gathering, data transmission, data evaluation, and data output. For example, claim 1 recites transmitting first calibration information, receiving that information, transmitting reliability information, comparing reliability values, and transmitting a reward/control signal. These are not specific technological improvements; rather, they are generic data-handling operations performed in the context of environmental sensor calibration.
Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments under MPEP § 2106.05(g) do not overcome the rejection.
Step 2B — the claims do not recite significantly more
Applicant’s arguments also do not demonstrate that the claims recite “significantly more” than the judicial exceptions. The additional elements, individually and as an ordered combination, amount to the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional sensor, computer, communication, storage, and output components to implement the abstract concepts.
The specification provides factual support that the claimed hardware is generic and conventional. For example:
The control unit may be a CPU. Specification ¶ [0042].
The computation units may be CPUs. Specification ¶¶ [0052], [0063].
The first sensor device may be a mobile terminal including a CPU, memory, and interface. Specification ¶ [0042].
The providing unit may be a display, monitor, speaker, or vibration providing unit. Specification ¶ [0043].
The environmental sensors may be known sensor types, such as gas sensors, CO₂ sensors, NOx sensors, SOx sensors, PM sensors, temperature sensors, humidity sensors, or pressure sensors. Specification ¶¶ [0028]-[0030], [0046]-[0047].
The system may be implemented using a generic computer including a CPU, RAM, display, communication interface, storage, ROM, keyboard, and input/output controller. Specification ¶¶ [0157]-[0167].
The ordered combination likewise does not provide significantly more. The claims merely combine generic data acquisition, transmission, receipt, storage, comparison, weighting, calibration/data adjustment, reward transmission, and notification/control signaling. The claims do not recite a nonconventional arrangement of hardware or a specific technological solution to a technological problem.
Thus, even considering the claims as an ordered combination, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions.
Response Regarding Dependent Claims
The dependent claims do not cure the deficiencies of independent claim 1.
Claims 3 and 4 merely specify whether the reward transmission unit is in the second sensor device or a server. This is a generic allocation of functionality.
Claims 5 and 6 merely define the measurement target and interior-space environment. These are field-of-use or environment limitations.
Claim 7 further recites reliability information and reward transmission based on reliability, which remains abstract evaluation and incentive administration.
Claim 8 recites control of the second sensor device based on reliability information, but does not specify a technical control mechanism.
Claim 10 recites storage and history-based reward transmission, which is generic data storage and business-rule application.
Claim 11 recites selecting a first sensor device based on reliability exceeding a threshold, which is abstract comparison and selection.
Claims 12 and 13 recite weighting calibration information based on reliability, which is mathematical/data evaluation.
Claims 14-17 recite recommended calibration times and rewards based on calibration timing, which are scheduling and incentive rules.
Claim 18 recites a user transmission command and additional reward based on timing and command input, which is generic user-input and reward administration.
Claim 19 recites weighting rewards based on order of receipt, which is an ordering/queue-based incentive rule.
Claim 21 recites vibrating the second sensor device only when the first calibration reliability is higher than the second calibration reliability. This is merely generic notification or output based on the result of a comparison.
None of the dependent claims recites a specific technological improvement to environmental sensors, sensor calibration circuitry, computer operation, network operation, or another technical field.
Conclusion
Applicant’s remarks have been fully considered. However, the arguments do not show that the claims avoid reciting a judicial exception, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, or add significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claims recite abstract ideas including:
reward/incentive administration, a certain method of organizing human activity;
reliability comparison and decision-making, a mental process;
calibration, weighting, and adjustment of numerical measurement information, mathematical/data-processing concepts.
The additional elements merely apply these concepts using generic sensor devices, generic communication units, generic computing components, generic storage, and generic output/control functions. The claims do not recite a specific technological improvement comparable to the improvements identified in Enfish, McRO, Thales, DDR Holdings, BASCOM, or Ex Parte Desjardins.
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1, 3-8, 10-19, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
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, 10-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.
35 U.S.C. §103 Rejection
Conclusion
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 Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm.
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
Prosecution Insights