CTNF 18/539,071 CTNF 101942 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 3 recites the limitation "the plurality of historical pressure values" in line 5 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes claim 3 will be read as dependent of claim 2, which recites “a plurality of historical pressure values”. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea as discussed below. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application for the reasons discussed below. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons discussed below. Step 1 of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine if the claims are to one of the statutory categories of invention. Applied to the present application, the claims belong to the statutory class of a product or process. Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance is divided into two Prongs. Prong 1 requires the examiner to determine if the claims recite an abstract idea, and further requires that the abstract idea belong to one of three enumerated groupings: mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity. Claim 1 is copied below, with the limitations belonging to an abstract idea being underlined. A device, comprising: a processor; a memory communicatively coupled to the processor; and a dynamic calibration logic, configured to: detect a geolocation of the device; measure an observed pressure value corresponding to the geolocation; receive one or more reference pressure values associated with the geolocation; and determine an offset pressure value based on the observed pressure value and the one or more reference pressure values. The limitation underlined can be considered to describe a mathematical calculation, namely a mathematical operation to calculate an offset value. The lack of specific equation in the claim merely points out that the claim would monopolize all possible appropriate equations for accomplishing this purpose in all possible systems. The additional limitations of processor and memory communicatively coupled to the processor does not offer a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the method to a computer (see ALICE CORP. v. CLS BANK INT’L 573 U. S. 208 (2014)). The additional limitations of “detect a geolocation”, “measure an observed pressure”, and “receive one or more reference pressure value” are insignificant extra-solution activity, i.e. data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Various considerations are used to determine whether the additional elements are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim does not recite a particular machine applying or being used by the abstract idea. The claim does not effect a real-world transformation or reduction of any particular article to a different state or thing. The claim does not contain additional elements which describe the functioning of a computer, or which describe a particular technology or technical field, being improved by the use of the abstract idea. Step 2b of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine whether the additional elements cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The considerations for this particular claim are essentially the same as the considerations for Prong 2 of Step 2a, and the same analysis leads to the conclusion that the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, Claim 1 is rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101. Claims 15 and 19 are analogous to claim 1, except claim 15 and 19 additionally recite a “GNSS receiver” and a “barometric sensor”. These are additional elements separate from the abstract idea that need to be considered at Prong 2 of the 101 analysis. However, the GNSS receiver and barometric sensor are generic computer products preforming insignificant extra-solution activity, i.e. mere data gathering. Claim 15 and 19 additionally add the recited “calibrate” step to the abstract idea limitations. This limitation can be considered a mathematical operation and does not impart a particular transformation on the barometric sensor. These additional limitations do not integrate the claim into a practical application or make it significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 15 and 19 are therefore rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101 as well. Dependent Claims 2-14 are similarly ineligible. Dependent Claim 2 adds the recited “receive”, “retrieve”, and “determine” steps to the abstract idea limitations discussed above. Dependent Claim 3 adds the recited “determine” to the abstract idea limitations. Dependent Claim 4 adds the recited “barometric sensor” which has been addressed above. Dependent Claim 5 adds the recited “calibrate” step which has been addressed above. Dependent Claim 6 adds the recited “measure” step to the abstract idea limitations. Dependent Claim 7 adds the recited “discover” step to the abstract idea limitations. Dependent Claim 7 additionally recites “a plurality of network devices” which does not offer a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the method to a computer. Claim 8 adds the recited “determine” and “receive” steps to the abstract idea limitations. Claim 9 adds the recited “transmit” and “receive” steps to the abstract idea limitations. Claim 10 adds the recited “determine” step to the abstract idea limitations. Claim 11 adds the recited “calibrate” step which has been addressed above. Claim 12 adds the recited “transmit” step to the abstract idea limitations. Claim 13 adds the recited “receive” step to the abstract idea limitations. Claim 14 adds the recited “receive” and “determine” steps to the abstract idea limitations. None of these dependent claims recite any further additional elements which would cause the claim as a whole to integrate the recited abstract idea into a particular practical application at Prong 2, or provide significantly more than the recited abstract idea at Step 2B. Claims 2-14 are therefore rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101 as well. Dependent Claims 16-18 are analogous to claims 10-12 and are therefore rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101 for analogous reasons. Dependent Claim 20 is analogous to claims 10-11 and is therefore rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101 for analogous reasons. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-2, 4-7, 15-17, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Dormody (US 20230273049 A1) . Regarding Claim 1 : Dormody teaches a device, comprising: a processor; a memory communicatively coupled to the processor; (mobile device 104 in Fig. 1, ¶0023) and a dynamic calibration logic, configured to: detect a geolocation of the device (position sensor 108 in Fig. 1, ¶0023); measure an observed pressure value corresponding to the geolocation (barometric pressure sensor 112 in Fig. 1, ¶0025); receive one or more reference pressure values associated with the geolocation (Fig. 1, ¶0035 “the reference network weather station data sample 132 (i.e., reference pressure data and reference temperature data and confidences therefor) for the general location 120” and “The reference network weather station data sample 132 for the general location 120 and timestamp is included as part of the general calibration data 122 that the server 102 sends to the mobile device 104”). and determine an offset pressure value based on the observed pressure value and the one or more reference pressure values (Calculate Calibration Value 314 in Fig. 3, ¶0077 “calculates the calibration value, including the calibration amount and the calibration confidence interval for each set of collected and filtered pressure and location data”). Regarding Claim 2 , Dormody teaches receive weather data (Reference Weather Station Data 130 in Fig. 1, ¶0035); retrieve a plurality of historical pressure values associated with the weather data from a weather database (¶0035); and determine the offset pressure value based on the plurality of historical pressure values (Calculate Calibration Value 314 in Fig. 3, ¶0077-0078). Regarding Claim 4 , Dormody teaches a barometric sensor configured to measure the observed pressure value (barometric pressure sensor 112 in Fig. 1). Regarding Claim 5 , Dormody teaches calibrate the barometric sensor based on the offset pressure value (¶0025 “calibration value 116 is used by the mobile device 104 or the barometric pressure sensor 112 to calibrate the barometric pressure sensor 112”). Regarding Claim 6 , Dormody teaches measure an optimized pressure value after calibration (¶0041 “The best calibration value is stored in a “current calibration table” and used to adjust the raw pressure measurement values generated by the barometric pressure sensor 112 to obtain calibrated pressure measurements”). Regarding Claim 7 , Dormody teaches discover a plurality of network devices (servers 102 in Fig. 1, ¶0041 “The server 102 generally represents one or more computerized devices”). Regarding Claim 15 , the limitations of claim 15 are analogous to claims 1, 4, and 5. Dormody teaches the additionally recited Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) receiver configured to detect a geolocation of the device (position sensor 108 in Fig. 1, ¶0023). Regarding Claim 19 , the limitations of claim 19 are found in claim 15 and are rejected for the same reasons. Regarding Claim 16 , Dormody teaches determine an optimized altitude based on one or more reference altitude values (408 in Fig. 4, ¶0093 “determines the possible altitude based on the terrain and building data 126 and the specific location 118” and ¶0027 “the user altitude database (for the data of the terrain and building data 126 and the terrain quality data 128)”). Regarding Claim 17 , Dormody teaches calibrate the barometric sensor based on the optimized altitude (¶0078 and ¶0025). Regarding Claim 20 , the limitations of claim 20 are found in claims 16-17 and are rejected for the same reasons . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-20-aia AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-21-aia AIA Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dormody (US 20230273049 A1) in view of Dormody (US 20210389204 A1; hereinafter D2) . Regarding Claim 3 , Dormody teaches the device of claim 2 and further teaches a plurality of difference values, wherein each difference value of the plurality of difference values corresponds to a difference between the observed pressure value and a historical pressure value of the plurality of historical pressure values (Calculate Calibration Values 314 in Fig. 3, ¶0077). Dormody additionally teaches ¶0086 “U.S. patent application Ser. No. 17/303,691, filed on Jun. 4, 2021, and titled “Constraining Barometric Pressure Sensor Calibration with Sporadic Data Collection”, discloses additional types of calibration techniques that can be used herein.” U.S. patent application No. 17/303,691 resulted in published patent US 20210389204 A1. Dormody does not teach an average of the plurality of difference values; and the offset pressure value based on the average of the plurality of difference values. D2 teaches an average of the plurality of difference values; and the offset pressure value based on the average of the plurality of difference values (Fig 14, ¶0098 “multiple calibration results can be equally weighted and then combined to form the combined calibration result”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the values of Dormody with the calibration techniques of D2 by using the calculations of D2 to calculate an average calibration value of the plurality of pressure differences of Dormody. Doing so would aid in ensuring an accurate calibration value as any one calibration result can vary in quality . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dormody (US 20230273049 A1) in view of Morioka (US 20170219342 A1) . Regarding Claim 18 , Dormody in view of Morioka teaches the limitations of Claim 17, but Dormody does not explicitly teach transmitting the optimized altitude to one or more network devices. Morioka teaches a terminal device conveying its determined height to another device (S6 in Fig 5, ¶0067). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention combine the device of Dormody with the transmission of Morioka by having the device of Dormody transmit an optimized altitude. Doing so would allow other network devices to know the position of Dormody’s device which would be beneficial in emergency situations. Examiner’s Note The Examiner notes that Claims 8-14 are distinguishable from the prior art of record. Claims 8-14 distinguish over the prior art for the following reasons: Regarding Claim 8 , Dormody does not teach determining a network device based on lowest barometric sensor uptime. Palanki (US 20150133145 A1) teaches selecting a subset of devices from a plurality of devices based on location to receive reference altitude values (Fig. 2A, ¶0073). Palanki does not teach selecting network devices based on lowest sensor uptime or receiving pressure values. Venkatraman (US 20160084934 A1) teaches selecting a most recent pressure value from a network device to use as a reference pressure (¶0029). Venkatraman does not teach selecting network devices based on sensor uptime. The prior art, when taken alone or in combination, cannot be construed as teaching or suggesting all of the elements of claim 8 as arranged, disposed, or provided in the manner as claimed by the Applicant. Dependent Claims 9-14 distinguish over prior art due to their dependence upon Claim 8 . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Robertson (US 20200322753 A1) teaches calibrating a device with geolocation and weather data (Fig. 13). Robertson also teaches using RSSI measurements and reference altitudes to determine a noisy estimated altitude (Fig. 11, ¶0090). Mahurkar (US 11747232 B2) teaches calibrating a barometric sensor and determining altitude (Fig. 2, Abstract). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODGER MENSING whose telephone number is (571)270-0129. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Schechter can be reached at 571-272-2302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /RODGER STEWART MENSING/ Examiner, Art Unit 2857 /ANDREW SCHECHTER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/539,071 Page 2 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/539,071 Page 3 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/539,071 Page 4 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/539,071 Page 5 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/539,071 Page 6 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/539,071 Page 7 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/539,071 Page 8 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/539,071 Page 9 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/539,071 Page 10 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/539,071 Page 11 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/539,071 Page 12 Art Unit: 2857
Prosecution Insights