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 .
Drawings
The drawings filed on 11/08/2023 are accepted.
Specification
The specification filed on 11/08/2023 is accepted.
Information Disclosure Statement
The examiner has considered the information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 03/19/2026.
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites a method which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 1):
The limitation of “identifying, by one or more processors of a processing system, a multi-device inference paradigm to be used to perform inference with the model based on inputs from one or more of the plurality of devices”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, other than reciting “one or more processors” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “identifying” in the context of this claim encompasses the user observes and identifies a platform/graph comprising multiple devices each provides input to a model.
The limitation of “generating, by the one or more processors, a first prediction using the model according to the multi-device inference paradigm based on a first input set”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, other than reciting “one or more processors” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “generating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user analyzing data received from the devices to predict an event such as a person entering or leaving a particular space.
The limitation of “generating, by the one or more processors, a second prediction using the model according to the multi-device inference paradigm based on a second input set”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, other than reciting “one or more processors” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “generating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user analyzing additional data received from the devices to predict an event such as a person entering or leaving a particular space.
The limitation of “generating, by the one or more processors, a loss value based on the first prediction and the second prediction” recites a mathematical concept.
The limitation of “modifying, by the one or more processors, one or more parameters of the model based on the loss value generated for at least one given event”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, other than reciting “one or more processors” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “modifying” in the context of this claim encompasses the user changes the values of data based on some factors.
If a claim, under the broadest reasonable interpretation covers concepts that can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, including observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion, or if a claim recites a mathematical concept, it will be considered as falling within the "mental process and/or mathematical concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of “a model” and “one or more processors”. The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing the generic computer functions) such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The additional elements of “the first input set comprising at least one input from each of the plurality of devices” and “the second input set comprising a modified copy of the first input set” amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not integrate into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “a model” and “one or more processors” to perform the generic computer functions amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The additional elements of “the first input set comprising at least one input from each of the plurality of devices” and “the second input set comprising a modified copy of the first input set” amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites the method which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element of “wherein each of the plurality of events occurs during a given period, and the first input set for each given event is based on data sensed by the plurality of devices during the given period” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activities of data gathering which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “wherein each of the plurality of events occurs during a given period, and the first input set for each given event is based on data sensed by the plurality of devices during the given period” is recited at a high level of generality and amount to insignificant extra-solution activities related to mere data gathering and/or transmitting (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have found limitations directed to receiving and transmitting information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites the method which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element of “the given period is a noncontinuous period comprised of two or more separate periods” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activities of data gathering since it further defines the given period of claim 2 when the first input set data is collected based on the sensor devices, thus, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “the given period is a noncontinuous period comprised of two or more separate periods” is recited at a high level of generality and amount to insignificant extra-solution activities related to mere data gathering and/or transmitting (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have found limitations directed to receiving and transmitting information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites the method which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 1):
The limitation of “the one or more processors are configured to generate each first prediction, each second prediction, and each loss value during a given period”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, other than reciting “one or more processors” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “generate” in the context of this claim encompasses the user analyzing data received from the devices to predict an event such as a human is present in a room during a certain period.
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element of “the first input set for each given event is based on data sensed prior to the given period” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activities of data gathering which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “the first input set for each given event is based on data sensed prior to the given period” is recited at a high level of generality and amount to insignificant extra-solution activities related to mere data gathering and/or transmitting (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have found limitations directed to receiving and transmitting information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites the method which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element of “for each given event of the plurality of events, the second input set comprises a modified copy of the first input set that includes one or more selected inputs of the first input set and omits one or more other inputs from the first input set” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activities of data gathering which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “for each given event of the plurality of events, the second input set comprises a modified copy of the first input set that includes one or more selected inputs of the first input set and omits one or more other inputs from the first input set” is recited at a high level of generality and amount to insignificant extra-solution activities related to mere data gathering and/or transmitting (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have found limitations directed to receiving and transmitting information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites the method which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 1):
The limitation of “determining, by the one or more processors, to omit the one or more other inputs based on a first value”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, other than reciting “one or more processors” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user remove some irrelevant/unimportant inputs to improve the accuracy of the output.
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Indeed, the claim does not recite any additional element beside the limitation that can be performed in a human mind. The claim is not patent eligible.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional element beside the limitation that can be performed in a human mind. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites the method which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 1):
The limitation of “modifying, by the one or more processors, the first value based on how often a device associated with the first input has been present in the ambient computing during a period of time”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, other than reciting “one or more processors” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “modifying” in the context of this claim encompasses the user changing data values based on some factors.
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Indeed, the claim does not recite any additional element beside the limitation that can be performed in a human mind. The claim is not patent eligible.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional element beside the limitation that can be performed in a human mind. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites the method which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 1):
The limitation of “modifying, by the one or more processors, the first value based on how much power has been consumed by a device associated with the first input during a period of time”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, other than reciting “one or more processors” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “modifying” in the context of this claim encompasses the user changing data values based on some factors.
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Indeed, the claim does not recite any additional element beside the limitation that can be performed in a human mind. The claim is not patent eligible.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional element beside the limitation that can be performed in a human mind. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites the method which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element of “for each given event of the plurality of events, the second input set comprises a modified copy of the first input set in which at least a first input of the first input set is replaced with a copy of a second input of the first input set” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activities of data gathering which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “for each given event of the plurality of events, the second input set comprises a modified copy of the first input set in which at least a first input of the first input set is replaced with a copy of a second input of the first input set” is recited at a high level of generality and amount to insignificant extra-solution activities related to mere data gathering and/or transmitting (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have found limitations directed to receiving and transmitting information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites the method which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element of “for each given event of the plurality of events, the second input set comprises a modified copy of the first input set in which at least a first input of the first input set is replaced with an upsample of a second input of the first input set” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activities of data gathering which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “for each given event of the plurality of events, the second input set comprises a modified copy of the first input set in which at least a first input of the first input set is replaced with an upsample of a second input of the first input set” is recited at a high level of generality and amount to insignificant extra-solution activities related to mere data gathering and/or transmitting (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have found limitations directed to receiving and transmitting information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites the method which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element of “the second input set comprises a modified copy of the first input set in which at least a first input of the first input set is replaced with a downsample of a second input of the first input set” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activities of data gathering which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “the second input set comprises a modified copy of the first input set in which at least a first input of the first input set is replaced with a downsample of a second input of the first input set” is recited at a high level of generality and amount to insignificant extra-solution activities related to mere data gathering and/or transmitting (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have found limitations directed to receiving and transmitting information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites the method which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element of “the second input set comprises a modified copy of the first input set in which at least a first input of the first input set is replaced with a synthetic input based on two or more other inputs of the first input set” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activities of data gathering which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “the second input set comprises a modified copy of the first input set in which at least a first input of the first input set is replaced with a synthetic input based on two or more other inputs of the first input set” is recited at a high level of generality and amount to insignificant extra-solution activities related to mere data gathering and/or transmitting (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have found limitations directed to receiving and transmitting information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites the method which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 1):
The limitation of “the synthetic input is an average of the two or more other inputs of the first input set” recites a mathematical concept.
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Indeed, the claim does not recite any additional element beside the limitation that can be performed in a human mind. The claim is not patent eligible.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional element beside the limitation that can be performed in a human mind. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites a system which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 1):
The limitation of “identify a multi-device inference paradigm to be used to perform inference with the model based on inputs from one or more of the plurality of devices”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “identify” in the context of this claim encompasses the user observes and identifies a platform/graph comprising multiple devices each provides input to a model.
The limitation of “generate a first prediction using the model according to the multi-device inference paradigm based on a first input set”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “generate” in the context of this claim encompasses the user analyzing data received from the devices to predict an event such as a person entering or leaving a particular space.
The limitation of “generate a second prediction using the model according to the multi- device inference paradigm based on a second input set”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “generate” in the context of this claim encompasses the user analyzing additional data received from the devices to predict an event such as a person entering or leaving a particular space.
The limitation of “generate, by the one or more processors, a loss value based on the first prediction and the second prediction” recites a mathematical concept.
The limitation of “modify, by the one or more processors, one or more parameters of the model based on the loss value generated for at least one given event”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “modify” in the context of this claim encompasses the user changes the values of data based on some factors.
If a claim, under the broadest reasonable interpretation covers concepts that can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, including observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion, or is a claim recites a mathematical concept, it will be considered as falling within the "mental process and/or mathematical concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of “a model”, “a memory” and “one or more processors”. The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing the generic computer functions) such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The additional elements of “the first input set comprising at least one input from each of the plurality of devices” and “the second input set comprising a modified copy of the first input set” amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not integrate into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “a model”, “a memory” and “one or more processors” to perform the generic computer functions amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The additional elements of the first input set comprising at least one input from each of the plurality of devices” and “the second input set comprising a modified copy of the first input set” amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites the system which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 1):
The limitation of “generate, for each given event of the plurality of events, a second prediction based on a second input set”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “generate” in the context of this claim encompasses the user analyzing certain data received from the devices to predict an event such as a person entering or leaving a particular space.
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element of “a second input set comprising a modified copy of the first input set that includes one or more selected inputs of the first input set and omits one or more other inputs from the first input set” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activities of data gathering which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “a second input set comprising a modified copy of the first input set that includes one or more selected inputs of the first input set and omits one or more other inputs from the first input set” is recited at a high level of generality and amount to insignificant extra-solution activities related to mere data gathering and/or transmitting (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have found limitations directed to receiving and transmitting information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites the system which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 1):
The limitation of “determine to omit the one or more other inputs based on a first value”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “determine” in the context of this claim encompasses the user remove some irrelevant/unimportant inputs to improve the accuracy of the output.
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Indeed, the claim does not recite any additional element beside the limitation that can be performed in a human mind. The claim is not patent eligible.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional element beside the limitation that can be performed in a human mind. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites the system which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 1):
The limitation of “modify the first value based on how often a device associated with the first input has been present in the ambient computing during a period of time”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, other than reciting “one or more processors” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “modify” in the context of this claim encompasses the user changing data values based on some factors.
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Indeed, the claim does not recite any additional element beside the limitation that can be performed in a human mind. The claim is not patent eligible.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional element beside the limitation that can be performed in a human mind. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites the system which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 1):
The limitation of “modify the first value based on how much power has been consumed by a device associated with the first input during a period of time”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, other than reciting “one or more processors” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “modify” in the context of this claim encompasses the user changing data values based on some factors.
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Indeed, the claim does not recite any additional element beside the limitation that can be performed in a human mind. The claim is not patent eligible.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional element beside the limitation that can be performed in a human mind. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites the system which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 1):
The limitation of “generate, for each given event of the plurality of events, a second prediction based on a second input set”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “generate” in the context of this claim encompasses the user analyzing certain data received from the devices to predict an event such as a person entering or leaving a particular space.
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element of “a second input set comprising a modified copy of the first input set in which at least a first input of the first input set is replaced with a copy, upsample, or downsample of a second input of the first input set” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activities of data gathering which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “a second input set comprising a modified copy of the first input set in which at least a first input of the first input set is replaced with a copy, upsample, or downsample of a second input of the first input set” is recited at a high level of generality and amount to insignificant extra-solution activities related to mere data gathering and/or transmitting (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have found limitations directed to receiving and transmitting information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites the system which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 1):
The limitation of “generate, for each given event of the plurality of events, a second prediction based on a second input set”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “generate” in the context of this claim encompasses the user analyzing certain data received from the devices to predict an event such as a person entering or leaving a particular space.
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element of “a second input set comprising a modified copy of the first input set in which at least a first input of the first input set is replaced with a synthetic input based on two or more other inputs of the first input set” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activities of data gathering which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “a second input set comprising a modified copy of the first input set in which at least a first input of the first input set is replaced with a synthetic input based on two or more other inputs of the first input set” is recited at a high level of generality and amount to insignificant extra-solution activities related to mere data gathering and/or transmitting (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have found limitations directed to receiving and transmitting information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 10-11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Scott et al. (US Pub. 2012/0086568) in view of Karras et al. (US Pub. 2019/0171936).
As per claim 1, Scott teaches a computer-implemented method of training a model to perform inference in an ambient computing environment having a plurality of devices [Fig. 1, abstract, “Inferring building metadata from distributed sensors is described. In an embodiment multiple sensors are situated at various locations in a building detecting physical quantities (e.g. light, heat, motion). The data from at least one sensor is analyzed in order to detect events occurring in proximity to the sensor. Data about an event detected at a first sensor is compared with events detected at other sensors in order to identify correlated events from which connections between the sensor locations can be inferred and a building layout generated”], the method comprising:
identifying, by one or more processors of a processing system, a multi-device inference paradigm to be used to perform inference with the model based on inputs from one or more of the plurality of devices [Fig. 1, paragraph 0021, “FIG. 1 is a schematic diagram of a distributed sensor network. The system comprises a plurality of sensors 102 distributed throughout a building 100 and a controller 104 which receives sensor data from each of the sensors 102. The controller 104 comprises: an event detection engine 108, which analyzes the sensor data and detects events in streams of data from a particular sensor; a comparison engine 110 which compares events detected in different data streams and identifies correlated events; and an analysis engine 112, which generates (or infers) data about the building, which is referred to as 'metadata', based on the output of the comparison engine 110”];
for each given event of a plurality of events [paragraph 0029, “The event detection engine 108 monitors data from the plurality of sensors in order to detect changes in that data, which are referred to as 'events'. The detected events may suggest a change in conditions in one or more portions of the building (e.g. a light being switched on or a person entering the portion of the building)”]:
generating, by the one or more processors, a first prediction using the model according to the multi-device inference paradigm based on a first input set, the first input set comprising at least one input from each of the plurality of devices [paragraph 0021, “a controller 104 which receives sensor data from each of the sensors 102. The controller 104 comprises: an event detection engine 108, which analyzes the sensor data and detects events in streams of data from a particular sensor; a comparison engine 110 which compares events detected in different data streams and identifies correlated events; and an analysis engine 112, which generates (or infers) data about the building”; paragraph 0025, “the controller 104 comprises at least one input for receiving sensor data from the plurality of distributed sensors 102 and is arranged to automatically infer metadata from that sensor data”];
Scott does not teach
generating, by the one or more processors, a second prediction using the model according to the multi-device inference paradigm based on a second input set, the second input set comprising a modified copy of the first input set; and
generating, by the one or more processors, a loss value based on the first prediction and the second prediction; and
modifying, by the one or more processors, one or more parameters of the model based on the loss value generated for at least one given event.
Karras teaches
generating, by the one or more processors, a second prediction using the model according to the multi-device inference paradigm based on a second input set, the second input set comprising a modified copy of the first input set [Fig. 1H-1I, paragraph 0005, “The neural network is trained for a first time duration using a training dataset including training input data and training output data … At least one of the training input data and the training output data is modified to produce first modified training data. The training input data or the modified training input data is processed by the neural network according to parameters to produce network output data”; Examiner interprets the first modified training data as the second input set which is a modified of the first input set (training dataset), and interprets the modified of the first input set as the modified copy of the first input set]; and
generating, by the one or more processors, a loss value based on the first prediction and the second prediction [paragraph 0005, “differences between the network output data and the training output data or the modified training output data”; Examiner interprets the differences and the loss value between the outputs]; and
modifying, by the one or more processors, one or more parameters of the model based on the loss value generated for at least one given event [paragraph 0005, “The training input data or the modified training input data is processed by the neural network according to parameters to produce network output data and the parameters are updated to reduce differences between the network output data and the training output data or the modified training output data”; paragraph 0058, “FIG. 1I illustrates a flowchart of step 135 shown in FIG. 1H, in accordance with an embodiment. At step 136, at least one of the training input data and the training output data are modified to produce first modified training data. At step 137, the neural network 110 processes the training input data or the first modified training data according to parameters of the neural network 110 to produce network output data. The training loss unit 105 receives the training output data and the network output data produced by the neural network 110 and produces updated parameters for the neural network 110. At step 138, the parameters are updated to reduce differences between the network output data and the training output data or, when the training output data is modified, to reduce differences between the network output data and the first modified training output data”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of inferring data from distributed sensors of Scott to include generating the second input set comprising a modified copy of the first input set, generating a loss value, and modifying one or more parameters of the model based on the loss value of Karras. Doing so would help retraining the modified model to reduce the differences between the network output data and the training output data or the modified training output data to improve stability during training (Karras, 0005).
As per claim 2, Scott and Karras teach the method of claim 1.
Scott further teaches
each of the plurality of events occurs during a given period [paragraph 0029, “The event detection engine 108 monitors data from the plurality of sensors in order to detect changes in that data, which are referred to as 'events'. The detected events may suggest a change in conditions in one or more portions of the building (e.g. a light being switched on or a person entering the portion of the building)”. The detected events are timestamped, i.e. each event has associated with it, the time at which the event occurred], and the first input set for each given event is based on data sensed by the plurality of devices during the given period [paragraph 0030, “The comparison engine 110 compares events identified in data streams from at least two sensors to find correlated events, i.e. events identified in data streams from different sensors which occur within a specified time period of each other (and so can be considered time-synchronized) and therefore may be related”; claim 8, “identifying events in sensor data from at least two of the plurality of distributed sensors which occur within a predefined time interval”; paragraph 0050, “Two events may be considered time-synchronized if they occur within a defined time window, MAX_TRANS_TIME and in an example, this parameter may be set at 5 seconds”].
As per claim 3, Scott and Karras teach the method of claim 2.
Scott further teaches
the given period is a noncontinuous period comprised of two or more separate periods [Fig. 7, paragraph 0050, “FIG. 7 shows the sensor data from two motion sensors 701, 702 located in different rooms and in each data stream, events may be detected at the boundaries between movement blocks 703 and static blocks 704. In this example, four events may be detected (two in each data stream) at times t1 -t4. Two events may be considered time-synchronized if they occur within a defined time window, MAX_TRANS_TIME and in an example, this parameter may be set at 5 seconds. The events may be identified as correlated (in block 206) if they are time-synchronized and if one event corresponds to a start of motion event and the other event corresponds to an end of motion event. In the example shown in FIG. 7, the events at times t1 and t2 are correlated and the events at times t3 and t4 are correlated”; It can be seen that the defined time window comprises two separate periods such as t1 and t2, or t3 and t4].
As per claim 10, Scott and Karras teach the method of claim 1.
Karras further teaches
the second input set comprises a modified copy of the first input set in which at least a first input of the first input set is replaced with an upsample of a second input of the first input set [paragraph 0064, “At step 260, the training data is modified to produce modified training data. For example, the training data may be downsampled or upsampled];
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of inferring data from distributed sensors of Scott to include the second input set comprises a modified copy of the first input set in which at least a first input of the first input set is replaced with an upsample of a second input of the first input set of Karras. Doing so would help retraining the modified model to reduce the differences between the network output data and the training output data or the modified training output data to improve stability during training (Karras, 0005).
As per claim 11, Scott and Karras teach the method of claim 1.
Karras further teaches
the second input set comprises a modified copy of the first input set in which at least a first input of the first input set is replaced with a downsample of a second input of the first input set [paragraph 0064, “At step 260, the training data is modified to produce modified training data. For example, the training data may be downsampled or upsampled];
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of inferring data from distributed sensors of Scott to include the second input set comprises a modified copy of the first input set in which at least a first input of the first input set is replaced with a downsample of a second input of the first input set of Karras. Doing so would help retraining the modified model to reduce the differences between the network output data and the training output data or the modified training output data to improve stability during training (Karras, 0005).
Claim 14 is rejected by the same reason as of claim 1, since these claims recite the similar limitations.
Scott further teaches
the system comprising:
a memory [Fig. 15, memory 1504]; and
one or more processors coupled to the memory and configured to [Fig. 15 shows processor 1502 couples to memory 1504]:
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott et al. in view of Karras et al. and further in view of Mital et al. (US Pub. 2018/0202819).
As per claim 4, Scott and Karras teach the method of claim 1.
Scott further teaches
the one or more processors are configured to generate each first prediction during a given period [paragraph 0021, “a controller 104 which receives sensor data from each of the sensors 102. The controller 104 comprises: an event detection engine 108, which analyzes the sensor data and detects events in streams of data from a particular sensor; a comparison engine 110 which compares events detected in different data streams and identifies correlated events; and an analysis engine 112, which generates (or infers) data about the building”; paragraph 0029, “The event detection engine 108 monitors data from the plurality of sensors in order to detect changes in that data, which are referred to as 'events'. The detected events may suggest a change in conditions in one or more portions of the building (e.g. a light being switched on or a person entering the portion of the building)”. The detected events are timestamped, i.e. each event has associated with it, the time at which the event occurred].
Karras teaches
the one or more processors are configured to generate … each second prediction [Fig. 1H-1I, paragraph 0005, “The neural network is trained for a first time duration using a training dataset including training input data and training output data … At least one of the training input data and the training output data is modified to produce first modified training data. The training input data or the modified training input data is processed by the neural network according to parameters to produce network output data”; Examiner interprets the first modified training data as the second input set which is a modified of the first input set (training dataset), and interprets the modified of the first input set as the modified copy of the first input set], and each loss value during a given period [paragraph 0005, “differences between the network output data and the training output data or the modified training output data”; Examiner interprets the differences and the loss value between the outputs; Since Scott teaches sensors data (first input) associated with an event which has a certain timestamp is processed to generate an inference/output, while Karass teaches the first input is modified to generate a second input which is used to train the model to generate a second output, then the differences between the outputs is calculated and used to update the model, therefore, the combination of Scott and Karras teaches the claim limitation “the one or more processors are configured to generate each first prediction, each second prediction, and each loss value during a given period”],
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of inferring data from distributed sensors of Scott to include generating each second prediction and each loss value of Karras. Doing so would help retraining the modified model to reduce the differences between the network output data and the training output data or the modified training output data to improve stability during training (Karras, 0005).
Scott and Karras do not explicitly teach
the first input set for each given event is based on data sensed prior to the given period.
Mital teaches
the first input set for each given event is based on data sensed prior to the given period [paragraph 0075, “The sensed features sensed at the second time may be the same as or different than the sensed features sensed at the first time. The confidence levels may change over time. As an example, suppose a human being is detected at time #1 at one side of a large room via an image with 90 percent confidence, and that the human being is specifically sensed as being Jolm Doe with 30 percent confidence. Now, at time #2 that is 0.1 seconds later, John Doe is sensed 50 feet away at another part of the room with 100 percent confidence, and there remains a human being at the same location where John Doe was speculated to be at time 1. Since human beings do not travel 50 feet in a tenth of a second (at least in an office setting), it can now be concluded that the human being detected at time 1 is not John Doe at all. So that confidence for time #1 that the human being is John Doe is reduced to zero”; suppose time #2 is the given period for detecting an event that John Doe is at another part of the room based on the sensed data, then to infer that the detected event is correct, the sense data prior to time #2 (given period) which detect a human at time #1 is also used as the first input by the model to perform inference, thus, the input set for the given event is based on data sensed prior to the given period (data sensed at time#1)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of inferring data from distributed sensors of Scott to include the first input set for each given event is based on data sensed prior to the given period of Mital. Doing so would help inferring data from distributed sensors with high confidence level (Mital, 0043).
Claims 5, 9, 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott et al. in view of Karras et al. and further in view of Sternby et al. (US Pub. 2023/0145544).
As per claim 5, Scott and Karras teach the method of claim 1.
Scott and Karras do not teach
the second input set comprises a modified copy of the first input set that includes one or more selected inputs of the first input set and omits one or more other inputs from the first input set.
Sternby teaches
the second input set comprises a modified copy of the first input set that includes one or more selected inputs of the first input set and omits one or more other inputs from the first input set [paragraph 0017, “the second set of training samples comprises training samples from the first set of training samples that have been miss-classified by the neural network during iteration of the first set of training samples”; It can be seen that the second set of training samples includes the selected inputs of the first input set (training samples from the first set of training samples that have been miss-classified by the neural network), and omits one or more other inputs from the first input set (training samples from the first set of training samples that have been correctly classified by the neural network)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of inferring data from distributed sensors of Scott to include the second input set comprises a modified copy of the first input set that includes one or more selected inputs of the first input set and omits one or more other inputs from the first input set of Sternby. Doing so would help training the neural network with new training samples to improve the accuracy of the model (Sternby, 0021).
As per claim 9, Scott and Karras teach the method of claim 1.
Scott and Karras do not teach
the second input set comprises a modified copy of the first input set in which at least a first input of the first input set is replaced with a copy of a second input of the first input set.
Sternby teaches
the second input set comprises a modified copy of the first input set in which at least a first input of the first input set is replaced with a copy of a second input of the first input set [paragraph 0017, “the second set of training samples comprises training samples from the first set of training samples that have been miss-classified by the neural network during iteration of the first set of training samples”; It can be seen that the second set of training samples comprises a modified copy of the first set of training samples in which least a first input (training sample that is correctly classified) is replaced with a copy of a second input (training sample that has been miss-classified) of the first set of training samples].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of inferring data from distributed sensors of Scott to include the second input set comprises a modified copy of the first input set in which at least a first input of the first input set is replaced with a copy of a second input of the first input set of Sternby. Doing so would help training the neural network with new training samples to improve the accuracy of the model (Sternby, 0021).
Claim 15 is rejected by the same reason as of claim 5, since these claims recite the similar limitations.
Claim 19 is rejected by the same reason as of claim 9, since these claims recite the similar limitations.
Claims 6-7 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott et al. in view of Karras et al. in view of Sternby et al. and further in view of Mullins et al. (US Pub. 2017/0092220).
As per claim 6, Scott, Karras and Sternby teach the method of claim 5.
Scott, Karras and Sternby do not explicitly teach
determining, by the one or more processors, to omit the one or more other inputs based on a first value.
Mullins teaches
determining, by the one or more processors, to omit the one or more other inputs based on a first value [paragraph 0024, “The viewing device typically includes sensors such as cameras, thermometers, infrared sensors, barometers, or humidity sensors … A sensor in the viewing device can fail and render the viewing device inoperable … The viewing device with the defective sensor then identifies a sensor from the dynamic sensor array that is comparable or performs a similar function to that of the defective sensor … identifies a substitute sensor from the dynamic sensor array to be used to replace the defective sensor”; examiner interprets “fail, defective” as the first value of the input from the sensor].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of inferring data from distributed sensors of Scott to include determining, by the one or more processors, to omit the one or more other inputs based on a first value of Mullins. Doing so would help obtaining accurate outputs/measurements from the sensors.
As per claim 7, Scott, Karras, Sternby and Mullins teach the method of claim 6.
Mullins further teaches
modifying, by the one or more processors, the first value based on how often a device associated with the first input has been present in the ambient computing during a period of time [paragraph 0024, “The viewing device with the defective sensor then identifies a sensor from the dynamic sensor array that is comparable or performs a similar function to that of the defective sensor. In another example embodiment, the viewing device with the defective sensor identifies the closest viewing device with an operating sensor comparable to the defective sensor. For example, the viewing device identifies a thermometer from another viewing device located within a same room when the defective sensor of the viewing device includes a thermometer … identifies a substitute sensor from the dynamic sensor array to be used to replace the defective sensor”; Examiner interprets the thermometer located with the same room of the defective sensor as a device has been present in the ambient computing during a period of time, and used to replace the defective sensor].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of inferring data from distributed sensors of Scott to include modifying, by the one or more processors, the first value based on how often a device associated with the first input has been present in the ambient computing during a period of time of Mullins. Doing so would help obtaining accurate outputs/measurements from the sensors.
Claim 16 is rejected by the same reason as of claim 6, since these claims recite the similar limitations.
Claim 17 is rejected by the same reason as of claim 7, since these claims recite the similar limitations.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott et al. in view of Karras et al. in view of Sternby et al. in view of Mullins et al. and further in view of Jakobsson (US Pub. 2021/0182111).
As per claim 8, Scott, Karras, Sternby and Mullins teach the method of claim 6.
Scott, Karras, Sternby and Mullins do not teach
modifying, by the one or more processors, the first value based on how much power has been consumed by a device associated with the first input during a period of time.
Jakobsson teaches
modifying, by the one or more processors, the first value based on how much power has been consumed by a device associated with the first input during a period of time [paragraph 0002, “systems that process sensor data”; paragraph 0126, “when the system determines that nobody is at home, some appliances such as TVs may have their power supply reduced or turned off by the system in order to reduce the consumption of phantom power”; paragraph 0176, “Room 302 is determined to be a living room, and comprises Node 2, Node 6, Node 3, and Node 8. Based on correlations between sound that is determined to be associated with a TV, and power consumption from Node 8, which is illustratively an outlet, the system determines that Node 8 is connected to the TV. This enables the user to remotely turn off the TV simply by instructing the service associated with the network to turn off the power to Node 8, or turn it to a sufficiently low voltage that the TV goes into hibernation and is only woken up when the system determines that a user enters room 302”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of inferring data from distributed sensors of Scott to include modifying, by the one or more processors, the first value based on how much power has been consumed by a device associated with the first input during a period of time of Jakobsson. Doing so would help managing power consumption of the electronic devices (Jakobsson, 0126).
Claim 18 is rejected by the same reason as of claim 8, since these claims recite the similar limitations.
Claims 12-13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott et al. in view of Karras et al. and further in view of Jannard et al. (US Pub. 2011/0150330).
As per claim 12, Scott and Karras teach the method of claim 1.
Scott and Karras do not teach
the second input set comprises a modified copy of the first input set in which at least a first input of the first input set is replaced with a synthetic input based on two or more other inputs of the first input set.
Jannard teaches
the second input set comprises a modified copy of the first input set in which at least a first input of the first input set is replaced with a synthetic input based on two or more other inputs of the first input set [paragraph 0021, “image sensor correction module 14 may replace the data from the defective sensor element with data from other sensor elements. For example, if a sensor element corresponding to a green filter is defective, the output of the defective sensor element could be replaced with some average value of green sensor elements in the vicinity of the defective element”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of inferring data from distributed sensors of Scott to include the second input set comprises a modified copy of the first input set in which at least a first input of the first input set is replaced with a synthetic input based on two or more other inputs of the first input set of Jannard. Doing so would help obtaining accurate outputs/measurements from the sensors (Jannard, 0021).
As per claim 13, Scott and Karras teach the method of claim 12.
Scott and Karras do not teach
the synthetic input is an average of the two or more other inputs of the first input set.
Jannard teaches
the synthetic input is an average of the two or more other inputs of the first input set [paragraph 0021, “image sensor correction module 14 may replace the data from the defective sensor element with data from other sensor elements. For example, if a sensor element corresponding to a green filter is defective, the output of the defective sensor element could be replaced with some average value of green sensor elements in the vicinity of the defective element”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of inferring data from distributed sensors of Scott to include the synthetic input is an average of the two or more other inputs of the first input set of Jannard. Doing so would help obtaining accurate outputs/measurements from the sensors (Jannard, 0021).
Claim 20 is rejected by the same reason as of claim 12, since these claims recite the similar limitations.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Sayavong et al. (US Pub. 2016/0335865) describes a method for predicting the specific presence of an individual in a location within the premises.
Wedig et al. et al. (US Pub. 2019/0340908) describes a building monitoring system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRI T NGUYEN whose telephone number is 571-272-0103. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 AM-5 PM, (CT).
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, OMAR FERNANDEZ can be reached at 571-272-2589. 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.
/TRI T NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2128
/KYLE R STORK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2128
Prosecution Insights