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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/24/2026 has been entered.
DETAILED ACTION
1. This action is responsive to applicant’s amendment dated 8/24/2026.
2. Claims 1, 2, 6-9, 11, 21, 23, 25-30, 32-34 and 36 are pending in the case.
3. Claims 3-5, 10, 12-20, 22, 24, 31 and 35 are cancelled.
4. Claim 36 is newly added.
5. Claims 1, 26 and 32 are independent claims.
Applicant’s Response
6. In Applicant’s response dated 8/24/2026, applicant has amended the following:
a) Claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 11, 21, 23, 26, 27, 30 and 32-34
Based on Applicant’s amendments and remarks, the following rejections previously set forth in Office Action dated 4/22/2026 are withdrawn:
a) All Prior Art Rejections
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 6-9, 11, 21, 23, 25-30, 32-34 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The dependent claims included in the statement of rejection but not specifically addressed in the body of the rejection have inherited the deficiencies of their parent claim and have not resolved the deficiencies. Therefore, they are rejected based on the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above.
Claims 1, 26 and 32:
Claims 1, 26 and 32 recite: “receiving first configuration information indicating one or more functions supported by a first device, wherein the first configuration information is from an entity associated with a manufacturer of the first device;
receiving second configuration information indicating one or more functions supported by a second device, wherein the second configuration information is from an entity associated with a manufacturer of the second device;
At best, par. 26; describes IoT elements may also include network-based services. These services may be operated by various entities, which may include the manufacturer or developer of IoT objects. Such services may include, but is not limited to, social networking services (e.g., Facebook and Twitter) and services provided by manufacturer's websites.
In other words, it is unclear which functions of configuration information that are supported by a device. It is also unclear as to how the first or second configuration information that is received from an entity associated with a manufacturer of a device also indicate a function supported by the device. If Facebook or Twitter are examples of the recited entities, then the social networking services fail to indicate one or more functions supported by a device.
Therefore, there is no mention of the newly amended limitation in the original Specification. Thus, the limitations include subject matter that was not described in the original Specification.
If the examiner has overlooked the portion of the original Specification that describes this feature of the present invention, then Applicant should point it out (by page number and line number) in the response to this Office Action.
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, 2, 6-9, 11, 21, 23, 25-30 and 32-34 and 36 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.
Step 1
Claims 1 ,2, 6, 7,8 , 9, 11, 21, 23, 25 and 36 are directed towards a method for providing a mechanism for integrating and controlling disparate IOT devices.
Claims 26-30 are directed towards a device for providing a mechanism for integrating and controlling disparate IOT devices.
Claims 32-34 are directed towards a non-transitory computer0readable storage medium including instructions for providing a mechanism for integrating and controlling disparate IOT devices.
Step 2A- Prong 1
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), then it falls within the "mental process" grouping of abstract ideas. The independent claims recite method, machine and manufacture product for visually perceiving rules associated with the operation of IOT elements.
Specifically, the independent claims 1, 26 and 32 recite: receiving first configuration information indicating one or more functions supported by a first device, wherein the first configuration information is from an entity associated with a manufacturer of the first device;
receiving second configuration information indicating one or more functions supported by a second device, wherein the second configuration information is from an entity associated with a manufacturer of the second device;
receiving a gestural input indicating a request to configure an action to be performed, by the first device, based at least on the second device satisfying a condition;
verifying, based on the first configuration information and the second configuration information, that the functions indicated by the first configuration information and the second configuration information permit the first device to perform the action based on the second device satisfying the condition;
determining, based on the verifying, that the action as configured by the request is valid and
causing, based on determining that the action is valid, output of a confirmation indication for a rule association with the action.
These limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretations, cover performance of the limitations in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the “receiving first and second configuration information” steps encompasses a user observation or evaluation of provided information related to functions supported by devices. The “receiving a gestural input indicating a request” step encompasses a user observing or evaluating gestural input on paper indicating a request to configure an action. The “verifying” step and “determining” encompasses a user evaluating to verify and determined mentally. The “output” step encompasses using pen and paper as an aid to output mental results indicating a confirmation. Therefore, these limitations are grouped within the "mental process" grouping (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) of abstract ideas. (see MPEP 2016.04(a)(2)(iii)). Accordingly, the independent claims recite an abstract idea.
Step2A -Prong 2
The independent claims recite the combination of additional elements of 1) a device 2) processor 3) memory 4) non transitory computer-readable storage medium
The independent claims merely use computer elements as tools to perform abstract ideas and generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The use of the computer elements as tools to implement the abstract idea and generally to link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not render the claim patent eligible because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The 1) a device 2) processor 3) memory 4) non transitory computer-readable storage medium are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere generic computer component limitations to apply the exception using a generic computer component or amounts to merely invoking a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Specifically, the computer components may be any number of hardware architectures including processors, user devices or storage devices, and function to perform data storage and processing (see specification par. 32-34, par. 58, par. 63, Figures 2A,3)
Integration into a practical application requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
As explained above, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the additional limitations are not indicative of materializing into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The independent claims do 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 using computer elements such as 1) a device 2) processor 3) memory 4) non transitory computer-readable storage medium to perform the noted steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Further, applicant's specification does not provide any indication that the receiving, determining, verifying and output steps are performing using anything other than a conventional computer. Generic computer elements recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, or conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept ("significantly more").
Therefore, the additional elements in the independent claims do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception. Furthermore, there is no indication that the additional limitations alone or in combination improves the functioning of a computer or any other technology, improves another technology or technical field, or effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Remaining Claims
Claims 2, 6-9, 11, 21, 23, 25, 27-30, 33, 34 and 36 are similarly rejected because they either further define/narrow the abstract idea and/or do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide as inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible even when considered individually or as an ordered combination.
The dependent claims add additional features including those that merely serve to further narrow the abstract idea above including: 1) receiving gestural input via user interface; (see claim 2, 27,28,33) is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere pre-solution (e.g., data gathering) or post-solution actions (e.g., displaying results), which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing thy abstract idea.
Applicant's inventive concept is using the computer as a tool to visually perceiving rules associated with the operation of IOT elements. So the improvement seems to improve the abstract idea (e.g., verifying perceived rules based on configuration information) verses an improvement in a technology or technological process. The improvement cannot come from the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(a)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY ORR whose telephone number is (571)270-1308. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Adam Queler can be reached at (571)272-4140. 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.
HENRY ORR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2172
/HENRY ORR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172
