CTFR 17/718,616 CTFR 86568 DETAILED ACTION Information Disclosure Statement 1. Applicant has listed the references in the IDS since they are deemed relevant to the claimed invention according to the Applicant. However, the number of references exceed 1000 and it’s not possible to consider all the listed reference in proper detail due to the limited given examining time. The Examiner therefore requests the Applicant to assist in identifying the most relevant references so that references are properly vetted for relevance and patentability. Applicant is reminded of the section 2004, paragraph 13 of the MPEP (reproduced below for convenience). PNG media_image1.png 121 758 media_image1.png Greyscale Double Patenting 08-33 AIA The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 41-60 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,348,193 in views of Sloo, Davis, Sutton, Kiani, Reeder and Walley as shown below in the rejection, in regard to the new limitations. As such, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of the recited references with the US Pat, so as to perform safety and sensor verifying operations and thereby efficiently run the smart home. Claim Objections Previous objection is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendment filed on 02/19/2026. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-01 AIA 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. 07-31-01 Claims 41-43 and 45-60 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 claims recite “flagging and flag,” but said limitation is not supported in the Original Disclosure, as there is not mention of any such limitation anywhere in the Original Disclosure. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 41-50, 52, 54-56, 58 and 60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sloo et al., US-PGPUB 2015/0100167 (hereinafter Sloo) in view of Davis et al., US-PGPUB 2008/0319692 (hereinafter Davis), Sutton, US Pat No. 5,589,627 (hereinafter Sutton) and Kiani, US-PGPUB 2011/0214280 (hereinafter Kiani) Regarding Claims 41, 54 and 60 . Sloo discloses assessing salvage potential for a smart home following damage to the smart home ( Fig. 1, smart home; Paragraph [0138], malfunctioning appliance or other component, potential issues within home, detect abnormality; Paragraph [0181], malfunctioning; Fig. 15, CO detector malfunctioning ), the computer-implemented method implemented by a computer system including one or more processors and a non-transitory memory, the one or more processors being in communication with the non-transitory memory, the computer-implemented method ( Paragraph [0002] ) comprising: receiving, by the one or more processors, at a time associated with a loss event involving the damage to the smart home, operating data from a plurality of components associated with autonomous operation features of the smart home ( Figs. 2-3; Fig. 20D, 3005-3015; Paragraph [0003], automated; Paragraph [0006]) , the operating data including sensor data from one or more sensors included in or associated with the plurality of components ( Fig. 3, sensors ); identifying, by the one or more processors, a sensor of the one or more sensors to assess based upon an analysis of information included in at least a portion and the operating data (( Paragraph [0138], malfunctioning appliances or components, malfunctioning hazard detectors; Paragraph [0181], detecting malfunctioning of sensors used in smart home operation; Fig. 15, CO detector malfunctioning; Figs. 18-20A) Sloo also discloses malfunctioning sensors and providing alerts ( Paragraphs [0138]; [0181] ) Sloo does not explicitly disclose comparing, by the one or more processors and for the identified sensor, signal values included in the sensor data for the identified sensor to a known set of signal values associated with proper functioning of the identified sensor, wherein the known set of signal values includes a range of signal values indicating proper functioning of the identified sensor, and does not disclose calculating, by the one or more processors, deviations between the signal values included in the sensor data for the identified sensor and the known set of signal values associated with proper functioning of the identified sensor, determining, by the one or more processors, and based upon the deviations, (i) that the signal values are not within the range of signal values indicating proper functioning of the identified sensor, in response to determining that the signal values are not within the range of signal values, (i) flagging, by the one or more processors, the identified sensor is malfunctioning, and (ii) determining, by the one or more processors and based on the deviations, an extent of damage of the malfunctioning sensor whether the malfunctioning sensor needs repair or replacement, wherein determining that the malfunctioning sensor needs the repair further comprises determining, by the one or more processors, at least one of one or more parts required to repair the malfunctioning sensor or one or more skills levels required to repair the malfunctioning sensor; and controlling, by the one or more processors, and for a period of time until the malfunctioning sensor is able to be repaired or replaced, the operation of the smart home to automatically mitigate for the malfunctioning sensor by at least one of (i) ignoring new sensor data generated by the malfunctioning sensor until the malfunctioning sensor is repaired or replaced, and relying on different sensor data from a different properly functioning sensor of the one or more sensors until the malfunctioning sensor is repaired or replaced. Davis discloses comparing, by the one or more processors and for the identified sensor, signal values included in the sensor data for the identified sensor to a known set of signal values associated with proper functioning of the identified sensor, wherein the known set of signal values includes a range of signal values indicating proper functioning of the identified sensor ( Paragraphs [0030]-[0031], differentials, [0049], compared to set of predetermined limits; Claims 10-11, comparing to a set of predetermined limits ), and calculating deviations between the signal values included in the sensor data for the identified sensor and the known set of signal values associated with proper functioning of the identified sensor ( Paragraph [0049], percentage change compared to predetermined limits or bounds ); determining, by the one or more processors, and based upon the deviations, (i) that the signal values are not within the range of signal values indicating proper functioning of the identified sensor, in response to determining that the signal values are not within the range of signal values, i) flagging, by the one or more processors, the identified sensor is malfunctioning ( Paragraph [0031]-[0032], flagged as non-functioning ), and determining, by the one or more processors and based on the deviations, an extent of damage of the malfunctioning sensor indicating whether the malfunctioning sensor needs repair or replacement ( Paragraphs [0030]-[0032], differentials; Claim 15, comparing to SNR to determine if a change of SNR at predefined level has occurred; Paragraphs [0049]-[0050] ); and controlling, by the one or more processors, and for a period of time until the malfunctioning sensor is able to be repaired or replaced, automatically mitigate for the malfunctioning sensor by at least one of (i) ignoring new sensor data generated by the malfunctioning sensor until the malfunctioning sensor is repaired or replaced, and relying on different sensor data from a different properly functioning sensor of the one or more sensors until the malfunctioning sensor is repaired or replaced ( Figs. 2A, B; Paragraph [0050], that transducer is disregarded; Claim 11, replacing transducer ) Sutton discloses comparing the sensor values to determine if the sensor is damaged or not, and once it has been established that the sensor is damaged, then determining the severity of the fault by measuring the output voltage from the damaged sensor, until the severity falls outside a permissible range and renewing the faulty sensor ( Col. 5, lines 18-67 ) Kiani discloses wherein determining that the malfunctioning sensor needs the repair further comprises determining, by the one or more processors, at least one of one or more parts required to repair the malfunctioning sensor or one or more skill levels required to repair the malfunctioning sensor ( Figs. 5A, 5B, 6, Paragraphs [0044]-[0057]; [0007]) At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Davis, Kiani and Sutton in Sloo and compare, by the one or more processors and for the identified sensor, signal values included in the sensor data for the identified sensor to a known set of signal values associated with proper functioning of the identified sensor, wherein the known set of signal values includes a range of signal values indicating proper functioning of the identified sensor, and does not disclose calculating, by the one or more processors, deviations between the signal values included in the sensor data for the identified sensor and the known set of signal values associated with proper functioning of the identified sensor, determining, by the one or more processors, and based upon the deviations, (i) that the signal values are not within the range of signal values indicating proper functioning of the identified sensor, in response to determining that the signal values are not within the range of signal values, (i) flagging, by the one or more processors, the identified sensor is malfunctioning, and (ii) determining, by the one or more processors and based on the deviations, an extent of damage of the malfunctioning sensor whether the malfunctioning sensor needs repair or replacement, wherein determining that the malfunctioning sensor needs the repair further comprises determining, by the one or more processors, at least one of one or more parts required to repair the malfunctioning sensor or one or more skills levels required to repair the malfunctioning sensor; and controlling, by the one or more processors, and for a period of time until the malfunctioning sensor is able to be repaired or replaced, the operation of the smart home to automatically mitigate for the malfunctioning sensor by at least one of (i) ignoring new sensor data generated by the malfunctioning sensor until the malfunctioning sensor is repaired or replaced, and relying on different sensor data from a different properly functioning sensor of the one or more sensors until the malfunctioning sensor is repaired or replaced, so as to optimize the usage of sensors in the monitoring the smart home in cost effective manner. Regarding Claims 42 and 55. Davis discloses transmitting, by the one or more processors, one or more test signals to the identified sensor; comparing, by the one or more processors, signal data of a plurality of signals including one or more expected response signals of the identified sensor to the one or more test signals and (ii) one or more received response signals of the identified sensor to the one or more test signals; and determining, based upon the comparing of the signal data, whether the signal values included in the sensor data for the identified sensor are not within the range of signal values indicating proper functioning of the identified sensor ( Paragraph [0021]; Paragraphs [0029]-[0050] ; Paragraph [0002]) Regarding Claims 43 and 56 . Davis discloses at least one of the one or more received response signals is an implied response based upon an absence of a response signal from the identified sensor ( Paragraph [0034], no response) , and the computer-implemented method further comprises determining the extent of damage of the identified sensor based upon the implied response ( Figs. 2A, B; Paragraph [0050]) Regarding Claim 45 . Sloo discloses the one or more processors are disposed within a computing device communicatively connected to a smart home controller of the smart home ( Figs. 1-3; Paragraph [0006]) Regarding Claim 46. Sloo discloses the computing device is a special-purpose computing device and is communicatively connected to the smart home controller via a communication port (Figs. 1-3) Regarding Claim 47 . Sloo discloses the computing device is a mobile computing device and is communicatively connected to the smart home controller via a wireless connection ( Paragraph [0008], wireless; Paragraph [0052]) Regarding Claim 48 . Sloo discloses the one or more processors are disposed within a smart home controller configured to operate the smart home ( Figs. 1-3 ) Regarding Claims 49 and 61 . Sloo discloses controlling the smart home controller to assess whether the identified sensor is in need of repair or replacement by a special-purpose computing device communicatively connected to the smart home controller via a data port of the smart home controller ( Figs. 1-3 ) Regarding Claim 50 . Sloo discloses identifying further comprises executing, by the one or more processors, a preliminary assessment of at least one of the plurality of components ( Paragraph [0138], flashing color to indicate potential issues with a given component ) Regarding Claims 52 and 58. Davis discloses determining, based upon the comparing of the signal values, that the identified sensor is malfunctioning based upon a probability that the identified sensor is currently or will be malfunctioning within a predetermined future time period, wherein the probability is based upon at least one of a number, a frequency, and a magnitude of the deviations ( Paragraphs [0047]-[0050], probability neural network and percentage changes, as compared to predetermined limits or bounds ) 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 51 and 57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sloo et al., US-PGPUB 2015/0100167 in views of Davis, US-PGPUB 2008/0319692, Kiani, 2011/0214280 and Sutton, US Pat No. 5,589,627, as applied to Claim 41, and further in view of Reeder, US Pat No. 9,182,751 (hereinafter Reeder) Regarding Claims 51 and 57. The modified Sloo does not explicitly disclose (i) adjusting one or more of the autonomous operation features that are associated with a component of the plurality of components associated with the malfunctioning sensor for the period of time until the malfunctioning sensor is able to be repaired or replaced, (ii) placing restrictions on use of the one or more of the autonomous operation features for the period of time until the malfunctioning sensor is able to be repaired or replaced; and (iii) designating one or more other components of the plurality of components to compensate for the malfunctioning sensor for the period of time until the malfunctioning sensor is able to be repaired or replaced. Reeder discloses detecting the malfunctioning of the carbon dioxide sensor and altering the operation of the monitoring system, appliances and/or HVAC system components associated with the property ( Col. 21, lines 54-67; Col. 22, lines 1-10; Abstract ) At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Reeder in the modified Sloo and perform adjusting one or more of the autonomous operation features that are associated with a component of the one or more components associated with the malfunctioning sensor for the period of time until the malfunctioning sensor is able to be repaired or replaced, (ii) placing restrictions on use of the one or more of the autonomous operation features for the period of time until the malfunctioning sensor is able to be repaired or replaced; and (iii) designating one or more other components of the plurality of components to compensate for the malfunctioning sensor for the period of time until the malfunctioning sensor is able to be repaired or replaced, so as to perform efficient safety operation . 07-21-aia AIA 11. Claim s 53 and 59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sloo et al., US-PGPUB 2015/0100167 in views of Davis, US-PGPUB 2008/0319692, Kiani, 2011/0214280 and Sutton, US Pat No. 5,589,627, as applied to Claim 41, and further in view of Walley et al., US-PGPUB 2015/0134954 (hereinafter Walley) Regarding Claims 53 and 59 . The modified Sloo does not disclose an attempt to repair the malfunctioning sensor by performing, by the one or more processors, a repair function selected from at least one of 1) resetting the malfunctioning sensor, 11) restarting the malfunctioning sensor, 1ii) rebooting the malfunctioning sensor, and iv) recalibrating the malfunctioning sensor, wherein the determining the extent of damage of the malfunctioning sensor includes determining, by the one or more processors, whether the executed repair function causes the malfunctioning sensor to operate in accordance with the known set of signal values associated with proper functioning of the identified sensor. Walley discloses recalibrating or rebooting the sensor if it determines that the sensor may be malfunctioning ( Paragraph [0050] ) At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Walley in the modified Sloo and perform an attempt to repair the malfunctioning sensor by performing, by the one or more processors, a repair function selected from at least one of 1) resetting the malfunctioning sensor, 11) restarting the malfunctioning sensor, 1ii) rebooting the malfunctioning sensor, and iv) recalibrating the malfunctioning sensor, wherein the determining the extent of damage of the malfunctioning sensor includes determining, by the one or more processors, whether the executed repair function causes the malfunctioning sensor to operate in accordance with the known set of signal values associated with proper functioning of the identified sensor, so as to verify the proper functioning of the sensor. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection. Conclusion 07-40 AIA Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL . See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HYUN D PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-7922. The examiner can normally be reached 11-4. 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, Arleen Vazquez can be reached at 571-272-2619. 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. /HYUN D PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 Application/Control Number: 17/718,616 Page 2 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 17/718,616 Page 3 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 17/718,616 Page 4 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 17/718,616 Page 6 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 17/718,616 Page 7 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 17/718,616 Page 8 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 17/718,616 Page 9 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 17/718,616 Page 10 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 17/718,616 Page 11 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 17/718,616 Page 12 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 17/718,616 Page 13 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 17/718,616 Page 14 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 17/718,616 Page 15 Art Unit: 2857
Prosecution Insights