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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the software update". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claim(s) does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation “a computer program product” may be interpreted as, “a signal carrying instructions or a program”. Additionally, the specification does not include a special definition that excludes transitory signals.
A recommended simple fix is to amend the limitation as follows:
“a non-transitory computer program product with instructions stored thereon, wherein said instructions, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform the steps of:”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pogorelik et al. (U.S. 2019/0049275, hereafter referred to as Pogorelik).
Regarding claim 1, Pogorelik teaches a method of evaluating a performance of a first sensor unit 204 arranged to measure a physical property of its environment at a location 206, the method comprising: an unmanned mobile entity 202 transporting a reference sensor unit 208 to the location, the reference sensor unit being arranged to measure the physical property at the location (see figure 1: 103); and evaluating a performance of the first sensor unit based on a comparison of measurements of the first and reference sensor units (figure 1: 105).
Regarding claim 2, Pogorelik teaches wherein the reference sensor unit 208 is arranged to measure the physical property in the vicinity of the first sensor unit 204 (see para. 0051, ‘The method 100 may include the UAV 202 approaching the local environment of the at least one (in other words one or more than one) stationary sensor 204’).
Regarding claim 3, Pogorelik teaches wherein the step of comparing measurements of the reference sensor unit and the first sensor unit is based on matching portions of respective measurements of each sensor unit (see para 0033, ‘the UAV performs a comparison measurement at the sensors, which is used for identifying divergences, malfunctioning, or expressed more general, to determine the reliability of the sensor. For example, if the stationary sensing 101 and the onboard sensing 103 reveal the substantially same result, the sensor provides a high reliability. The more the stationary result and the onboard result differ from each other, the less reliability is provided by the sensor’).
Regarding claim 7, Pogorelik teaches the method further comprising: calibrating the first sensor unit by updating software or installing new software so as to offset a determined difference between the measurements of the first and reference sensor units (see para. 0033, ‘At a certain lack of reliability, the sensor may be reported and/or scheduled for maintenance, e.g., to be inspected, calibrated, replaced, repaired, or otherwise adapted’).
Regarding claim 8, Pogorelik teaches wherein the unmanned mobile entity either remains at the location of the first sensor unit while measuring the physical property with the reference sensor unit (see para. 0051-0054), or the unmanned mobile entity is arranged to drop off the reference sensor unit at the location of the first sensor unit for measuring the physical property and optionally returns to remove the reference sensor unit from said location.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, it has been held that to be entitled to weight in method claims, the recited structure limitations therein must affect the method in a manipulative sense, and not to amount to the mere claiming of a use of a particular structure. Ex parte Pfeiffer, 1962 C.D.408 (1961). In this case, the location where the calibration is done does not affect the method in a manipulative sense.
Regarding claim 11, Pogorelik teaches further comprising: transferring the measurements of the first sensor unit to the reference sensor unit or to the unmanned mobile entity (see para. 0033, ‘the UAV performs a comparison measurement at the sensors’).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Pogorelik teaches further comprising: transferring the measurements of the reference sensor unit and the first sensor unit to a separate processing unit which is arranged to evaluate the performance of the first sensor unit based on said comparing of measurements (see para. 0034, ‘The system, e.g. a local server or other central processing unit thereof, compares the stationary result and the onboard result, for example, in an automated manner’).
Regarding claim 14, Pogorelik teaches further comprising: replacing the first sensor unit with another sensor unit (see para. 0033, ‘At a certain lack of reliability, the sensor may be reported and/or scheduled for maintenance, e.g., to be inspected, calibrated, replaced, repaired, or otherwise adapted’).
Regarding claims 15, 17 and 18, Pogorelik teaches wherein the reference sensor unit (UAV 202) comprises several sensor units which are arranged to measure the same physical property as the first sensor unit (see para. 0053, ‘the UAV 202 may be part of a swarm of UAVs 202. For example, the swarm of UAVs 202 may be configured to perform the onboard sensing 103’).
Regarding claim 19, Pogorelik teaches a computer program element comprising computer program code to, when loaded into a computer system and executed thereon, cause the computer to perform the steps of a method as claimed in claim 1 (see para. 0196).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pogorelik.
Pogorelik does not explicitly teach averaging measurements over time, however this concept is common practice as mentioned in Pogorelik (para. 0041).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teaching of Pogorelik since it has been held that discovering an optimwn value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272,205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Pogorelik does not explicitly teach receiving the measurements of the first sensor unit; and, responsive to an evaluation that the performance of the first sensor unit does not meet a defined threshold value, updating the received measurements with offset data that are based on at least some of the corresponding measurements of the reference sensor unit; and/or wherein, responsive to the reference sensor unit being removed from the location of the first sensor unit, the method further comprising: continuing to update the received measurements with offset data that are based on at least some of the corresponding measurements of the reference sensor unit prior to being removed.
Pogorelik does teach compensation for sensor measurement differences throughout the disclosure, specifically in para. 0037-0045, Pogorelik suggests several approaches to minimize the sensing differences; data correlation; and references a criterion threshold, which is based at least in part, on chronological or spatial divergence between each respective sensor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teaching of Pogorelik since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272,205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pogorelik in view of Sun et al. (U.S. 11,143,532, hereafter referred to as Sun).
Regarding claim 16, Pogorelik does not explicitly teach wherein the offset data have been determined by using machine learning techniques which are based on historical measurements of reference sensor units.
Sun teaches a similar method for sensor calibration, wherein in response to receiving a data from at least one calibration sensor and data from an itinerant sensor, comparing the data from the at least one calibration sensor and the data from the itinerant sensor, (2) in response to the comparing, determining, by one or more processors, the accuracy of the itinerant sensor, (3) generating, by the one or more processors, one or more calibration parameters based on the determining and based on a machine learning associated with preexisting sensor information (see Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teaching of Pogorelik with the teachings of Sun since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272,205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMEL E WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)270-7027. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10am-4pm.
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, John Breene can be reached at (571)272-4107. 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.
/JAMEL E WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights