System and Method of Calibrating Sensing Instruments
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/11/2024 and 06/03/2026 are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the sum of increases” and “the sum of absolute values of the difference” should read “a sum of increases” and “a sum of absolute values of a difference”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the sensor reading” should read “the sensor readings”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: “populating a derivative buffer based on the reading buffer data” should read “populate a derivative buffer based on reading buffer data”. Additionally, “estimate a AMI” should read “estimate an AMI”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 4 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities: “the resolution value” should read “a resolution value”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 5-7 are objected to because of the following informalities: “the observation” should read “an observation”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 8-9 are objected to because of the following informalities: “the calibration process” should read “a calibration process”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the change in the sensor reading” should read “the change in the sensor readings”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: “populating a derivative buffer based on the reading buffer data” should read “populating a derivative buffer based on reading buffer data”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the AMI” should read “an AMI”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 17-18 are objected to because of the following informalities: “the calibration process” should read “the calibration method”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the percentage” should read “a percentage”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 10 and 19, the limitation “estimate a stabilization point” is unclear how a stabilization point can be estimated without a minimum threshold of sensors readings being defined in the series of sensor readings. The dependent claims are likewise interpreted and rejected.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “approximately 50% of the sum” is unclear since one of ordinary sill in the art would not know how close to 50% of the sum would satisfy the limitation. For the purpose of examination, the examiner interprets the limitation as “50% of the sum”. The dependent claims are likewise interpreted and rejected.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation “retrieve a AMI from a previous N sample of derivative” is unclear if the AMI is from the previous estimate or an additional AMI. For the purpose of examination, the examiner interprets the limitation as “retrieve an additional AMI from a previous N sample of derivative readings”. The dependent claims are likewise interpreted and rejected.
Regarding claim 14-16, the limitation “the observation” is unclear if it refers to the last N observations of claim 12 or something else. For the purpose of examination, the examiner interprets the limitation as “a current observation”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 10-12 and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cooper (WO 2021243470; “Cooper”).
Regarding claim 10, Cooper discloses, in figures 1-12, a computer-implemented method (200, 400, 800) of calibrating (¶ 0050, examiner notes Cooper’s method is performed by a calibration unit) an instrument (106), the method comprising: obtaining a series of sensor readings (210); determining variations between changes in successive sensor readings from the series of sensor readings (210); estimating a stabilization point of the sensor readings by identifying at least one sensor reading from the series of sensor readings at which the percentage of total recent movement which was in an upward direction falls within a certain threshold ((230), ¶ 0041, Cooper’s percentage may reach “zero or near zero”); and adjusting, based on the stabilization point, a parameter in the instrument that represents an association between sensor readings and a known physical quantity (240).
Regarding claim 11, Cooper discloses, in figures 1-12, the stabilization point comprises a point where the change in the sensor reading reaches near zero (¶ 0041, “the stabilization point may comprise a point where the change in the sensor reading reaches zero or near zero”).
Regarding claim 12, Cooper discloses, in figures 1-12, updating a reading buffer (804) with the series of sensor readings (¶ 0046, “instrument 106 continues receiving data 402 which is passed to the calibration unit 104”); populating a derivative buffer based on the reading buffer data (806); estimating a relevant statistic based on the last N observations (808); determining an interval where the relevant statistic of stable readings would fall ((810), ¶ 0052 “the standard deviation estimator calculated N samples ago is retrieved 810 where N is the size of the RADi buffer. This is used to construct an interval where readings would be expected to be contained within if the signal were stable”); determining one or more intervals where the relevant statistic of extreme readings would fall (812).
Regarding claim 14, Cooper discloses, in figures 1-12, determining that the observation is stable (818) when its relevant statistic estimate is sufficiently close to a value representative of a stable signal (¶ 0053, “reading is considered stable if a minimum of N_s samples in the RADi buffer are contained within the desired interval”).
Regarding claim 15, Cooper discloses, in figures 1-12, determining that the observation is extreme (816) in an upward or downward direction (or at an inflection point) when its relevant statistic estimate is sufficiently close to a value representative of a rapidly changing signal (¶ 0053, “reading is considered extreme if a maximum of N_e samples in the RADi buffer are contained within the desired interval”).
Regarding claim 16, Cooper discloses, in figures 1-12, determining that the observation is unstable (820) when it is neither stable nor extreme (¶ 0053, “If neither of these conditions are met or additionally if the sample is not extreme but there has been an extreme sample in the last N samples 814, the reading is considered unstable”).
Regarding claim 17, Cooper discloses, in figures 1-12, associating a physical quantity value with the sensor output as identified through the calibration process (see claim 17, (240)).
Regarding claim 18, Cooper discloses, in figures 1-12, associating a target value with the sensor output as identified through the calibration process (see claim 18, ¶ 0069)).
Regarding claim 19, Cooper discloses, in figure 1-12, a calibration subsystem for calibrating an instrument (see claim 19), the calibration subsystem comprising: a processor (see claim 19); and a memory comprising instructions which, when executed by the processor, configure the processor to: obtain a series of sensor readings from at least one sensor (see claim 19); determine variations between changes in successive sensor readings from the series of sensor readings (see claim 19); estimate a stabilization point of the sensor readings by identifying at least one sensor reading from the series of sensor readings at which the percentage of total recent movement (see claim 19, Cooper compares a current change in sensor reading from the change in previous sensor readings, the examiner asserts the BRI of the percentage of total recent movement includes a comparison of current change to previous change) which was in an upward direction falls (see fig. 9D, examiner notes Cooper’s depicted embodiment illustrates changing sensor readings that are generally increasing and approaching a maximum) within a certain threshold (¶ 0039, Cooper determines the signal is “near stability” when “is found where the proportion of readings in which the first difference between any two output readings over a pre-defined latter set of readings is consecutively less than half the maximum first difference observed in a pre-defined earlier set of readings”); and adjust, based on the stabilization point, a parameter in the instrument that represents an association between sensor readings and a known physical quantity (see claim 19).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
Claim 13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY P GRAVES whose telephone number is (469)295-9072. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 a.m. - 5 p.m..
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
/TIMOTHY P GRAVES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights