DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed July 31st, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-7 and 9-20 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome the 112(b), 102, and 103 rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed May 5th, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-7 and 9-20 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 1 recites the limitation "the plurality of network devices" in line 13 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 7 recites “discover a plurality of network devices”. For examination purposes, “the plurality of network devices” in claim 1 will be interpreted as “a plurality of network devices” and in claim 7 “a plurality of network devices” will be interpreted as “the plurality of network devices”. Clarification by the applicant is required.
Claims 2-7 and 9-14 depend on claim 1, therefore claims 2-7 and 9-14 inherit the same issues as claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 15 and 19 are analogous to claim 1, therefore claims 15 and 19 have the same issues as claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 16-18 depend on claim 15, therefore claims 16-18 inherit the same issues as claim 15 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 20 depends on claim 19, therefore claim 20 inherits the same issue as claim 19 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "receive a first reference pressure" in line 15 of the claim. The claim also recites “receive one or more reference pressure values” and “determine an offset pressure value based on … the one or more reference pressure values”. It is unclear if the “first reference pressure” should be interpreted as one of the “one or more reference pressure values”. It is also unclear if the “first reference pressure” should be interpreted as being used in the “determine an offset pressure value”. For examination purposes, “one or more reference pressure values” and “determine an offset pressure” will be interpreted as not being required to have or use the “first reference pressure”. For instance, the first reference pressure could be used to determine another offset pressure which is to be used to re-calibrate a device, rather than to determine the recited offset pressure which might have been intended to do the initial calibration of the device.
It is noted that the amended steps in the last four lines of claim 1 line up with the disclosure of the application’s Fig. 6, which ends with the determination of an offset pressure. If the applicant intends the amended claim to be reciting that offset pressure determination, it would seem to make the most sense to recite the last four lines of claim 1 before the recited determination of the offset pressure value. This may not be the intent of the applicant however, as claim 1 appears to be merging aspects of Figs. 4 and 6.
It is also noted that the lack of a complete, coherent narrative in claim 1 dovetails with the 101 rejection below, in that it makes it difficult for claim 1 to be viewed as reciting a particular practical application as opposed to a series of somewhat disjointed steps whose purpose is not necessarily being recited. To make this point more clear, the examiner notes that claim 1 includes limitations corresponding to steps 410, 420, 420, and 440 of Fig. 4, but it lacks step 450 of calibrating the barometric sensor based on the offset pressure value which is recited in claim 5; the amended steps include limitations corresponding to steps 620 and 630 (step 610 as recited in claim 7 is somewhat implied), but it is not clear whether step 660 is merely omitted from the claim or whether it is somehow meant to be understood to be joined to the “determine an offset pressure value” limitation that was mapped above to step 440.
Clarification by the applicant is required.
Claims 2-7 and 9-14 depend on claim 1, therefore claims 2-7 and 9-14 inherit the same issues as claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 15 and 19 are analogous to claim 1, therefore claims 15 and 19 have the same issues as claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 16-18 depend on claim 15, therefore claims 16-18 inherit the same issues as claim 15 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 20 depends on claim 19, therefore claim 20 inherits the same issue as claim 19 and is rejected for the same reasons.
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 1-7 and 9-20 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 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 process or apparatus.
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 limitations belonging to an abstract idea being underlined.
A device, comprising:
a processor;
a memory communicatively coupled to the processor;
a Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) receiver configured to detect a geolocation of the device; and
and a dynamic calibration logic, configured to:
measure an observed pressure value corresponding to the geolocation;
receive one or more reference pressure values associated with the geolocation;
determine an offset pressure value based on the observed pressure value and the one or more reference pressure values;
determine a first network device of the plurality of network devices having the lowest barometric sensor uptime; and
receive a first reference pressure value of the one or more reference pressure values from the first network device.
The limitation underline can be considered to describe a mental process or mathematical concept, namely a mathematical operation to calculate an offset value and select a network device with the lowest uptime.
The additional limitation of “Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) receiver” is a generic product and does not implement the steps of the method, as such the limitation does integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional limitations of “detect a geolocation”, “measure an observed pressure”, “receive one or more reference pressure values”, and “receive a first reference pressure value” are insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data gathering, required to implement the abstract idea and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The additional limitations of “processor” and “memory” do 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 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. Claims 15 and 19 additionally recites “a barometric sensor”. These additional elements are separate from the abstract idea that need to be considered at Prong 2 of the 101 analysis. However, the barometric sensor is a generic product performing insignificant extra-solution activity, i.e. mere data gathering, required to implement the abstract idea and does not serve to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. 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 2-7 and 11-14 are similarly ineligible. Dependent Claim 2 adds the recited “determine” step to the abstract idea limitations discussed above. Dependent Claim 2 additionally recites “receive” and “retrieve” which are is insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data gathering. 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 additionally the recites “measure” which is insignificant extra-solution activity. 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 9 additionally recites “transmit” and “receive” which is insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data gathering. 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 additionally recites “transmit” which is insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. outputting results. Claim 13 additionally recites “receive” which is insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data gathering. Claim 14 adds the recited “determine” steps to the abstract idea limitations. Claim 14 additionally recites “receive” which is insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data gathering.
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 31 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to 101 rejection (See Applicant’s response, pg 8 para 4 & pg 9 para 1), Applicant argues that claim 1 addresses a concrete technical problem and integrates the mathematical concept into a practical application.
In response to applicant's argument that claim 1 addresses a concrete technical problem, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., barometric sensors drift over time causing inaccurate pressure and altitude determinations; the calibration of barometric sensors to get accurate altitude measurements and improve wireless-network operation) are not recited in the rejected claim 1. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Claim 1 only recites measuring pressure values and determining an offset pressure. Claim 1 does not recite calibrating a pressure sensor or determining an altitude with the calibrated pressure sensor. Examiner notes that determining an accurate altitude with a calibrated pressure sensor in order to improve wireless-network operation could be a practical application and overcome the 101 rejection.
With respect to the 101 rejection (See Applicant’s response, page 8 paragraph 5), Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to merely abstract concepts because of the GNSS receiver and the selection of device with lowest barometric sensor uptime. The selection of a device with lowest barometric sensor uptime is a mental process, namely a decision of choosing a sensor with the lowest uptime from a group of sensors. The technical reason detailed in the specification for the selection does not change that the selection is a mental process. The GNSS receiver is not an abstract idea. However, the GNSS receiver is only used for data gathering and does not implement the steps of the claimed method. As such the GNSS receiver does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
Prosecution Insights