CTNF 18/541,505 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. Specification 07-29 AIA The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraphs 47 and 49 recite "orthogonal complement 120". It is unclear if this should recite "orthogonal complement 306" or "linear subspace 120" . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-01 AIA The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. 07-31-02 AIA Claim 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Claim 1 recites “projecting a selected set of uncalibrated gains onto a linear subspace”. Eq. 4 and Para 40 in the specification recite “an empirically estimated gain based on gains from one or more prior time epochs”. The specification lacks an equation for projecting uncalibrated gains onto a linear subspace. Undue experimentation would be required by a person skilled in the art to practice the full scope of the claim. Claim 1 additionally recites “calibration harmonization of uncalibrated sensor measurements” and “determines the calibrated gains based on the offsets”. Para 46 and Eq. 6 in the specification show an equation to determine true gains based on the offsets. However, this equation seems to require knowledge of c, which are calibrated values. It is unclear how this equation can be solved with only uncalibrated sensor measurements. Undue experimentation would be required by a person skilled in the art to practice the full scope of the claim. Considering the most relevant Wands factors (see MPEP 2164.01(a)) in this situation, the lack of direction on these matters by the inventor and the lack of working examples suggest that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to resolve these issues with an undue amount of experimentation. The examiner respectfully requests that the applicant clarify how these matters are enabled by the specification (or in the prior art available to those of ordinary skill, if this is considered to be common knowledge). Claims 2-7 depend on claim 1, therefore claims 2-7 inherit the same issues as claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons. Claims 8 and 14 are analogous to claim 1, therefore claims 8 and 14 have the same issues and are rejected for the same reasons. Claims 9-13 depend on claim 8, therefore claims 9-13 inherit the same issues as claim 8 and are rejected for the same reasons. Claims 15-20 depend on claim 14, therefore claims 15-20 inherit the same issues as claim 14 and are rejected for the same reasons . 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 Claims 1-20 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 “selected set of uncalibrated gains” in line 8 of the claim. An uncalibrated gain is not a well-defined term and the specification in Para 46 recites “empirically estimated gains”. It is unclear what the intended meaning of “uncalibrated gains” is, therefore the claim is indefinite. For examination purposes “uncalibrated gains” will be interpreted to include estimated gains. Claims 2-7 depend on claim 1, therefore claims 2-7 inherit the same issues as claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons. Claims 8 and 14 are analogous to claim 1, therefore claims 8 and 14 have the same issues and are rejected for the same reasons. Claims 9-13 depend on claim 8, therefore claims 9-13 inherit the same issues as claim 8 and are rejected for the same reasons. Claims 15-20 depend on claim 14, therefore claims 15-20 inherit the same issues as claim 14 and are rejected for the same reasons. Claim 3 recites the limitation “calibrating based on the calibration gains and offsets sensors that generate measurements within predetermined range”. The claim is indefinite due to the multiple potential interpretations of the recited line. The claim can be read as the calibrating is based on gains and offsets and only sensors within a predetermined range are being calibrated. The claim can be read as the gains and offsets are from only sensors within the predetermined range. For examination purposes claim 3 will be read as “calibrating, based on the calibration gains and offsets, sensors that generate measurements within predetermined range.” Claims 10 and 16 are analogous to claim 3 and rejected for the same reasons. Claims 10 and 16 will be interpreted the same as claim 3. 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 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 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 limitations belonging to an abstract idea being underlined. A computer-implemented method, comprising: generating, over a time epoch, a time series of uncalibrated sensor measurements produced by a plurality of sensors, wherein the time epoch is a dynamically variable span of time during which enough uncalibrated sensor measurements are collected to enable estimation of calibration gains and offsets for the plurality of sensors during the time epoch; generating calibration gains and offsets by performing calibration harmonization of the uncalibrated sensor measurements, wherein the calibration harmonization generates a linear transformation that determines the offsets by projecting a selected set of uncalibrated gains onto a linear subspace, and determines the calibrated gains based on the offsets ; and reconfiguring the plurality of sensors in response to determining which sensors generate measurements that when calibrated based on calibration harmonization lie within a predetermined range . The limitation underlined can be considered to describe a mathematical concept, namely calculations to determine calibration values with a linear transformation and applying those values to calibrate sensors. 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 limitation of “a plurality of sensors” are generic products and do not integrate into a practical application. The additional limitation of “generating, over a time epoch, a time series of uncalibrated sensor measurements” is 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 8 and 14 are analogous to claim 1, except claim 8 additionally recites “a system comprising: one or more processors configured to initiate the operations” and claim 14 additionally recites “a computer program product comprising: one or more computer-readable storage media and program instructions”. These are additional elements separate from the abstract idea that need to be considered at Prong 2 of the 101 analysis. However, “one or more processors” and “computer-readable storage media” 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)). These additional limitations do not integrate the claim into a practical application or make it significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 8 and 14 are therefore rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101 as well. Dependent Claims 2-7 are similarly ineligible. Dependent Claim 2 adds the recited “successively determining” and “successively reconfiguring” to the abstract idea limitations discussed above. Claim 2 additionally recites “generating additional time series” which is data gathering. Dependent Claim 3 additionally recites “reconfiguring the plurality of sensors includes calibrating”. This limitation can be considered a mathematical operation and does not impart a particular transformation on the sensor. Dependent Claim 4 additionally recites “reconfiguring the plurality of sensors includes taking offline” which does not impart a particular transformation on the sensors. Dependent Claim 5 additionally recites “generating an alert” which is insignificant post-solution activity. Dependent Claim 6 adds the recited “predetermined range is determined by span of an orthogonal complement” to the abstract idea limitations. Dependent Claim 7 adds the recited “number of uncalibrated sensor measurements is minimum number” 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 2-7 are therefore rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101 as well. Dependent Claims 9-13 are analogous to claims 2-6 and are therefore rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101 for analogous reasons. Dependent Claims 15-20 are analogous to claims 2-7 and are therefore rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101 for analogous reasons. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20170169627 A1) in view of Balzano ("Blind Calibration of Sensor Networks," 2007 6th International Symposium on Information Processing in Sensor Networks, 2007, pp. 79-88) . Regarding Claim 1 , Kim teaches: reconfiguring the plurality of sensors in response to determining which sensors generate measurements that when calibrated based on calibration harmonization lie within a predetermined range (S130, S140, S150 Fig. 4; Para 82 “verify whether or not the degree of error between the measured data of the reference sensor and the measured data of the sensor to be diagnosed is within the allowable error range for determining whether or not calibration is required”). Kim does not explicitly teach generating, over a time epoch, a time series of uncalibrated sensor measurements produced by a plurality of sensors, wherein the time epoch is a dynamically variable span of time during which enough uncalibrated sensor measurements are collected to enable estimation of calibration gains and offsets for the plurality of sensors during the time epoch; generating calibration gains and offsets by performing calibration harmonization of the uncalibrated sensor measurements, wherein the calibration harmonization generates a linear transformation that determines the offsets by projecting a selected set of uncalibrated gains onto a linear subspace, and determines the calibrated gains based on the offsets. Balzano teaches: generating, over a time epoch, a time series of uncalibrated sensor measurements (Section 4 Para 1: “Given k snapshots taken at different time instances”) produced by a plurality of sensors (Section 2 Para 1: “Consider a network of n sensors”), wherein the time epoch is a dynamically variable span of time during which enough uncalibrated sensor measurements are collected to enable estimation of calibration gains and offsets for the plurality of sensors during the time epoch (Section 6.2 Theorem 2: “It is necessary to make at least signal measurements in order to determine the gains”); generating calibration gains and offsets by performing calibration harmonization of the uncalibrated sensor measurements, wherein the calibration harmonization generates a linear transformation that determines the offsets by projecting a selected set of uncalibrated gains onto a linear subspace (Section 5 Before Eq. 6: “We can determine the component of the offset in the nullspace using P β = - P Y - α ^ . Let us assume the component is known (from the estimated calibration gains)”), and determines the calibrated gains based on the offsets (Section 4 Before Eq. 5: “Give this characterization of the β solutions, we can rewrite the constraints (3) in terms of α alone”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the calculations of Balzano with the invention of Kim by applying the reconfiguration process of Kim to the sensors and calibration values of Balzano. Doing so would allow for increased accuracy of measurements in a sensor network by configuring sensors based on if the sensors measurements lie within an acceptable range. Regarding Claim 3 , Kim in view of Balzano teaches the limitations of claim 1 and Kim in view of Balzano further teaches wherein reconfiguring the plurality of sensors includes calibrating based on the calibration gains and offsets sensors that generate measurements within the predetermined range (S160 and S220 Fig. 4; Para 84: “verify whether or not the degree of error between the measured data of the reference sensor and the measured data of the sensor to be diagnosed is within the validation gate” and Para 90: “the calibration module 145 may perform the calibration of the sensor”). Regarding Claim 5 , Kim in view of Balzano teaches the limitations of claim 1 and Kim in view of Balzano further teaches generating an alert in response to determining that a sensor calibrated based on calibration harmonization generates measurements that do not lie within the predetermined range (S160 and S190 Fig. 4; Para 84: “verify whether or not the degree of error between the measured data of the reference sensor and the measured data of the sensor to be diagnosed is within the validation gate” and Para 87: “diagnosis module 143 may notify a driver of the failure of the sensor”). Regarding Claim 7 , Kim in view of Balzano teaches the limitations of claim 1 but Kim does not explicitly teach wherein a number of the uncalibrated sensor measurements is a minimum number sufficient to enable estimation of calibration gains and offsets. Balzano teaches wherein a number of the uncalibrated sensor measurements is a minimum number sufficient to enable estimation of calibration gains and offsets (Section 6.2 Theorem 2: “It is necessary to make at least … signal measurements in order to determine the gains”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the calculations of Balzano with the invention of Kim in view of Balzano by requiring a minimum number of measurements before calibrating. Doing so would ensure for accurate calculations of gains and offsets. Regarding Claim 8 , the limitations of claim 8 are analogous to claim 1. Kim teaches the additionally recited one or more processors configured to initiate operations (Processor 140 Fig. 1; Para 37 “the apparatus for fault diagnosis and calibration of sensors for ADAS may include a measuring unit 110, a storage 120, an output unit 130 and a processor 140.”) Regarding Claim 10 , the limitations of claim 10 are analogous to claim 3. Regarding Claim 12 , the limitations of claim 12 are analogous to claim 5. Regarding Claim 14 , the limitations of claim 14 are analogous to claim 1. Kim teaches the additionally recited computer program product comprising: one or more computer-readable storage media (Storage 120 Fig. 1; Para 48 “storage 120 may store various types of data generated according to a program for the operation of the processor 140 and the operations of the devices”) and program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer-readable storage media, the program instructions executable by a processor to cause the processor to initiate operations (Processor 140 Fig. 1; Para 37 “the apparatus for fault diagnosis and calibration of sensors for ADAS may include a measuring unit 110, a storage 120, an output unit 130 and a processor 140”). Regarding Claim 16 , the limitations of claim 16 are analogous to claim 3. Regarding Claim 18 , the limitations of claim 18 are analogous to claim 5. Regarding Claim 20 , the limitations of claim 20 are analogous to claim 7 . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 2, 9, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Balzano as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Konrardy (US 11682244 B1) . Regarding Claim 2 , Kim in view of Balzano teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Kim in view of Balzano further teaches successively reconfiguring the plurality of sensors based on the calibration harmonization during each of the multiple time epochs (S130, S140, S150 Fig. 4; Para 82 “verify whether or not the degree of error between the measured data of the reference sensor and the measured data of the sensor to be diagnosed is within the allowable error range for determining whether or not calibration is required”). Kim does not explicitly teach generating additional time series over multiple time epochs and successively determining for each time epoch calibration gains and offsets by performing calibration harmonization during each of the multiple time epochs. Balzano teaches successively determining for each time epoch calibration gains and offsets by performing calibration harmonization during each of the multiple time epochs (Section 5 Before Eq. 6: “We can determine the component of the offset in the nullspace using P β = - P Y - α ^ ”and Section 4 Before Eq. 5: “Give this characterization of the β solutions, we can rewrite the constraints (3) in terms of α alone”). Konrardy teaches generating additional time series over multiple epochs (312 Fig. 3; Column 28 Line 39: “The controller 204 may continue to receive and process sensor data”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the method of Konrardy with the invention of Kim in view of Balzano by incorporating the continuous data processing of Konrardy into the calibration calculations and sensor reconfiguration of Kim in view of Balzano. Doing so would allow for sensors to be continuously re-calibrated, ensuring accuracy of measurements. Regarding Claim 9 , the limitations of claim 9 are analogous to claim 2. Regarding Claim 15 , the limitations of claim 15 are analogous to claim 2 . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 4, 11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Balzano as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Demerly (US 20200300967 A1) . Regarding Claim 4 , Kim in view of Balzano teaches the limitations of claim 1 and Kim in view of Balzano further teaches reconfiguring the plurality of sensors includes taking offline sensors that when calibrated based on calibration harmonization generate measurements that do not lie within the predetermined range (S160 and S190 Fig. 4; Para 84: “verify whether or not the degree of error between the measured data of the reference sensor and the measured data of the sensor to be diagnosed is within the validation gate” and Para 87: “diagnosis module 143 may notify a driver of the failure of the sensor”). Kim and Balzano do not explicitly teach taking offline sensors. Demerly teaches reconfiguring the plurality of sensors includes taking offline sensors that when calibrated based on calibration harmonization generate measurements that do not lie within the predetermined range (Para 57: “the processor 11 may be configured to determine the operational status of the sensor and shut down/turn off the second sensor if it is determined that the sensor is malfunctioning”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the method of Demerly with the invention of Kim in view of Balzano by incorporating the taking sensors offline method of Demerly into reconfiguration process of Kim in view of Balzano. Doing so would ensure the erroneous sensors would not continue to produce faulty measurements. Regarding Claim 11 , the limitations of claim 18 are analogous to claim 4. Regarding Claim 17 , the limitations of claim 20 are analogous to claim 4. Examiner’s Note The Examiner notes that Claims 6, 13, and 19 are distinguishable from the prior art of record. Claims 6, 13, and 19 distinguish over the prior art for the following reasons: Regarding Claim 6 , Kim and Balzano do not teach determining a range by the span of an orthogonal complement generated by the linear transformation. The broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 6 is that the linear transformation in part creates a perpendicular line whose length determines a range. The prior art, when taken alone or in combination, cannot be construed as teaching or suggesting all of the elements of claim 6 as arranged, disposed, or provided in the manner as claimed by the Applicant. Claims 13 and 19 are analogous to claim 6 and are distinguishable over the prior art of record for analogous reasons . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lubberhuizen ( US 20170227576 A1 ) teaches blind calibration (Abstract: “sensor calibration, which involves gathering an initial first estimate and then binning the data samples, so that calibration can be performed without the need for a known reference stimulus”) by calculating gains and offsets with a linear transformation (Para 49: “calibration function is assumed to be an affine transformation that can be expressed as combination of Hermitian linear transformation and an offset”). 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: 18/541,505 Page 2 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/541,505 Page 3 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/541,505 Page 4 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/541,505 Page 5 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/541,505 Page 6 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/541,505 Page 7 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/541,505 Page 8 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/541,505 Page 9 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/541,505 Page 10 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/541,505 Page 11 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/541,505 Page 12 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/541,505 Page 13 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/541,505 Page 14 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/541,505 Page 15 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/541,505 Page 16 Art Unit: 2857
Prosecution Insights