DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. Claims 1-14 are pending and presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The representative claim 1 recites:
A method of recalibrating a plurality of sensors in a technical installation, the method comprising:
receiving, by a processing unit, a first image of a sensor of a plurality of sensors in a technical installation and a second image of a standard measurement device attached to the sensor;
determining, by the processing unit, a first reading associated with the sensor and a second reading associated with the standard measurement device based on an analysis of the first image and the second image;
determining, by the processing unit, that the sensor is in an uncalibrated state by application of an artificial intelligence model on the first reading and the second reading, wherein the artificial intelligence model is configured to determine the uncalibrated state in the sensor; and
outputting, by the processing unit, a notification to a user based on a determination that the sensor is in the uncalibrated state.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claims are considered to be in a statutory category (process).
Under Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitation that fall into/recite abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter that, when recited as such in a claim limitation, covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) and/or mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
Next, under Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations in the claim are only: receiving, by a processing unit, a first image of a sensor of a plurality of sensors in a technical installation and a second image of a standard measurement device attached to the sensor;…and outputting, by the processing unit, a notification to a user based on a determination that the sensor is in the uncalibrated state.. The limitations “receiving, by a processing unit, a first image of a sensor of a plurality of sensors in a technical installation and a second image of a standard measurement device attached to the sensor” are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., gathering or collecting data using a computer component) such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The limitations “outputting, by the processing unit, a notification to a user based on a determination that the sensor is in the uncalibrated state” is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a computer structures performing a generic computer function of outputting information) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components.
Finally, under Step 2B, we consider whether the additional elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as noted above, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as gathering or collecting data and outputting information using a computer/computing components). Further, the additional elements are conventional in the art, as evidenced by the art of record (see, Trikha et al. US 20230065864 (hereinafter, Trikha), ([0020], [0088], Fig. 11), and Cader et al. US 20220404235 (hereinafter, Cader), ([0110], Fig. 1). Therefore, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 3-4, 6-8, and 10-11, add further details of the identified abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 2, recites the limitations of “receiving, by the processing unit, a plurality of calibration data items associated with each sensor of the plurality of sensors in the technical installation, wherein the plurality of calibration data items comprises information associated with each calibration cycle of a plurality of calibration cycles of the plurality of sensors, and the information associated with each calibration cycle of the plurality of calibration cycles comprises a plurality of historical sensor readings, a plurality of historical standard measurement device readings, and a plurality of recorded calibration error of each sensor of the plurality of sensors during each calibration cycle of the plurality of calibration cycles; training, by the processing unit, the artificial intelligence model to determine a calibration error of each sensor of the plurality of sensors in the technical installation based on the received plurality of calibration data items; and determining, by the processing unit, that the sensor is in the uncalibrated state by the application of the trained artificial intelligence model on the first reading and the second reading”.
The claim recites additional element of “receiving, by the processing unit, a plurality of calibration data items associated with each sensor of the plurality of sensors in the technical installation.” However, this limitation is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., gathering or collecting data using a computer component) such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Further, the additional element is conventional in the art, as evidenced by the art of record (see, Trikha ([0020], Fig. 11), and Cader (Abstract, [0110], Fig. 1). Therefore, claim 2 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 5, recites the limitations of “wherein the method further comprises: determining, by the processing unit, a rate of degradation of a number of readings of the sensor based on an analysis of the plurality of calibration data items; determining, by the processing unit, whether the determine rate of degradation is greater than a threshold; and notifying, by the processing unit, a user to perform predictive maintenance on the sensor based on the determination that the rate of degradation is greater than the threshold”.
The claim recites additional element of “notifying, by the processing unit, a user to perform predictive maintenance on the sensor based on the determination that the rate of degradation is greater than the threshold.” However, this limitation is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a computer structures performing a generic computer function of outputting information) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Further, the additional element is conventional in the art, as evidenced by the art of record (see, Trikha ([0088], Fig. 11), and Cader (Abstract, [0110], Fig. 1). Therefore, claim 5 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 9, recites the limitations of “receiving, by the processing unit, a first location of the sensor in the technical installation; receiving, by the processing unit, a second location of the user in the technical installation; mapping, by the processing unit, the first location and the second location on a map of the technical installation; generating, by the processing unit, a navigational path between the first location and the second location; and displaying, by the processing unit, the generated navigational path and the map of the technical installation, via a display device”.
The claim recites additional element of “receiving, by the processing unit, a first location of the sensor in the technical installation; receiving, by the processing unit, a second location of the user in the technical installation;.” However, this limitation is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., gathering or collecting data using a computer component) such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Further, the additional element is conventional in the art, as evidenced by the art of record (see, Trikha ([0020], Fig. 11), and Cader (Abstract, [0110], Fig. 1).
Further, the claim recites additional element of “displaying, by the processing unit, the generated navigational path and the map of the technical installation, via a display device.” However, this limitation is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a computer structures performing a generic computer function of outputting information) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Further, the additional element is conventional in the art, as evidenced by the art of record (see, Trikha ([0088], Fig. 11), and Cader (Abstract, [0110], Fig. 1). Therefore, claim 9 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 12, recites the limitations of “a processing unit; and a memory coupled to the processing unit, wherein the memory comprises a sensor recalibration module stored in the form of machine-readable instructions executable by the one or more processor(s), wherein the sensor recalibration module”.
The claim recites additional element of “a processing unit; and a memory coupled to the processing unit, wherein the memory comprises a sensor recalibration module stored in the form of machine-readable instructions executable by the one or more processor(s), wherein the sensor recalibration module.” However, these limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a computer structures performing a generic computer function of processing and storing information) such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Further, the additional element is conventional in the art, as evidenced by the art of record (see, Trikha ([0088], Fig. 11), and Cader (Abstract, [0110], Fig. 1). Therefore, claim 12 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 13 and 14, the claims are rejected with the same rationale as in claims 1 and 12 as explained above.
Drawings
5. The drawings of Figures 4A-4D are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83 (a) and 1.84(n) and (o) because Figures 4A-4D show features specified in Applicant’s disclosure and claims are not illustrated with “label representation” corresponding to elements of the drawing thereby the elements/features of the respective Fig. 4A-4D are not readily identifiable, for example 4A, block 32 should include few words such as “a plurality of calibration data are received”, etc…
Any element/structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of drawing should be indicated with corresponding labels/legends and they should contain as few words as possible. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objection
6. Claims 7-9 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 7 recites “….the image processing algorithm….” should read “….[[the]] an image processing algorithm….” Appropriate correction is required.
7. Claims 10-11 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 10 recites “….the sensor (is in the uncalibrated….” should read “the sensor [[(]] is in the uncalibrated….” Appropriate correction is required.
8. Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 13 recites “….an industrial control system….” should read “….[[an]] the industrial control system….” Appropriate correction is required.
Examiner’s Notes
9. Claims 1-14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
10. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Meng et al. (US 11422246) discloses a method for determining whether a sensor is calibrated and error handling of an uncalibrated sensor. The system comprises a sensor system comprising a sensor and an analysis engine configured to determine whether the sensor is uncalibrated. The system further comprises an error handling system configured to perform an error handling in response to the sensor system determining that the sensor is uncalibrated. The method comprises determining whether the sensor is uncalibrated, and performing, by an error handling system, an error handling in response to the sensor system determining that the sensor is uncalibrated. Trikha et al. (US 20230065864) discloses a systems for sensor calibration in at least one enclosure. The calibration may be performed automatically at or after deployment of the sensor in the enclosure. The calibration may utilize the data of the sensor to be calibrated and/or sensor data of adjacent sensor(s) in the enclosure. Cader et al. (US 20220404235) discloses a system for improving statistical and machine learning drift detection models that monitor computing health of a data center environment. For example, the system can receive streams of sensor data from a plurality of sensors in a data center; clean the streams of sensor data; generate, using a machine learning (ML) model, an anomaly score and a dynamic threshold value based on the cleaned streams of sensor data; determine, using the ML model and based on the anomaly score and the dynamic threshold value, a correctness indicator for a first sensor in the plurality of sensors, and using the correctness indicator, correct the first sensor. The prior art of record does not teach or make obvious the claim invention in claim 1 “determining, by the processing unit, a first reading associated with the sensor and a second reading associated with the standard measurement device based on an analysis of the first image and the second image; determining, by the processing unit, that the sensor is in an uncalibrated state by application of an artificial intelligence model on the first reading and the second reading” in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant.
Conclusion
11. Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers, and/or paragraphs, and/or pages in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EYOB HAGOS whose telephone number is (571)272-3508. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30-5:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Shelby Turner can be reached on 571-272-6334. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Eyob Hagos/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights