DETAILED ACTION
This Action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on 11/06/25.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 13, 20 and 21 have been amended.
Claim 12 has been previously cancelled.
Claim 22 has been added
Claims 1-11 and 13-22 are pending.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Argument – The applicant argues, in regards to the 103 rejection of claims 1 and 20, that Sandridge does not disclose the amended limitation “the one or more control parameters each dictating an operational behavior of one of the managed devices”. In particular, the applicant states Sandridge’s remote control of a device to turn it on or off, or modifying its behavior remotely without turning it on or off does not correspond to the “control parameters” which dictate the operational behavior of the devices (see applicant’s remarks; pages 6 and 7).
Response to argument – After further consideration of Sandridge, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner submits that Sandridge discloses a control parameter by an operation being set for a device. The examiner notes that the claim language merely recites “control parameters” without further definition, i.e. what the control parameters include. While the applicant argues that “control parameters” necessarily refers to a function or program which controls the way the managed devices operate, e.g., the function which decides which inputs causes a device to be turned on or off (see applicant’s remarks; page 7), the examiner notes that the claim language does not recite such detail.
Sandridge discloses a user may set an oven to a specific temperature (emphasis added) when not at home via a remote activation (see Sandridge; paragraphs 0026 and 0060). In other words, an action of setting dictates the temperature of the oven. According to the applicant’s specification, control parameters can include actions (see applicant’s specification as filed; paragraph 0030). As such, the examiner uses the broadest reasonable interpretation that is consistent with the applicant’s specification.
Therefore, Sandridge does in fact disclose “the one or more control parameters each dictating an operational behavior of one of the managed devices” by the operation of the oven being dictated when the temperature is set, e.g. an action. As such, the rejection has been maintained.
In order to help expedite prosecution, the examiner suggests the applicant amend the claim language to more clearly specify, with support found in the applicant’s specification, what the applicant considers the control parameters to include or do and how the operational behavior relates to the control parameters.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1-11 and 13-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandridge et al. (U.S. 2022/0417119 A1) in view of Martinson et al. (U.S. 2024/0085754 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sandridge discloses a local computer for managing managed devices, the managed devices and the local computer being local to a facility having at least one electric machine monitored by sensors (see Sandridge; paragraphs 0018, 0040 and 0047; Sandridge discloses a system, including a tablet computer, i.e. “local computer”, can monitor and receive sensor data recorded by different IoT devices, i.e. “managed devices”, in a smart building, i.e. “facility”. An IoT device may be an oven, microwave, etc. i.e. “at least one electric machine monitored”), the electric machine having a power (see Sandridge; paragraph 0025; Sandridge discloses an energy meter may detect a 1kW increase in power consumption), the managed devices having at least one acquisition unit for the sensors (see Sandridge; paragraph 0027; Sandridge discloses monitoring and receiving sensor data, i.e. “at least one acquisition unit for the sensors”), the managed devices configured to communicate over a local network (see Sandridge; paragraphs 0024 and 0027; Sandridge discloses the IoT devices, i.e. “managed devices”, communicate over a mesh network, i.e. “a local network”), the local computer positioned at a boundary between the local network and a telecommunications network (see Sandridge; paragraphs 0047 and 0081; Sandridge discloses the tablet computer, from the local network, can communicate with a remote controller or external computer through the internet, i.e. “a boundary between the local network and a telecommunications network”), the local computer configured to communicate i) with the managed devices via a local network (see Sandridge; paragraphs 0027, 0047 and 0080; Sandridge discloses the tablet computer receiving sensor data from the IoT devices over the mesh network, i.e. “a local network”) and ii) with a remote computer via a telecommunications network (see Sandridge; paragraphs 0047, 0080 and 0081; Sandridge discloses the tablet computer communicating with an external computer via the internet, i.e. “telecommunications network”), the local computer having;
non-transitory memory storing executable instructions (see Sandridge; paragraph 0073; Sandridge discloses the computer system includes a memory that stores instructions);
a hardware processor that executes the instructions (see Sandridge; paragraph 0073; Sandridge discloses a CPU may execute the instructions) to: build a current local state for the managed devices including retrieving from the managed devices, via the local network, a plurality of current states of corresponding managed devices, (see Sandridge; paragraphs 0028, 0029 and 0039; Sandridge discloses determining a state of devices, i.e. “build a current local state for the managed devices” from the monitored sensor data. Sensor data is received from the known devices, i.e. “managed devices”, i.e. “a plurality of current states of corresponding managed devices”. A interface depicts current detected status of every known device); and
integrating the plurality of current states into the current local state (see Sandridge; paragraphs 0028 and 0029; Sandridge discloses the determined state, i.e. “current local state”, is based on the received sensor data, which includes the states, from the devices, i.e. “integrating the plurality of current states”), the current local state including one or more control parameters, the one or more control parameters each dictating an operational behavior of one of the managed devices (see Sandridge; paragraphs 0026, 0028, 0029 and 0060; Sandridge discloses a user may set, i.e. “control parameter”, an oven to a specific temperature when not at home via remote activation. In particular, the system determines the state of the device, e.g. oven, such as detecting that the device has been activated and the set temperature, i.e. “operational behavior”. In other words, the action of setting, i.e. “control parameter”, dictates the temperature, i.e. “operational behavior, of the oven, i.e. “one of the managed devices”. The examiner notes according to the applicant’s specification, the control parameters may be rules or actions; see applicant’s specification as filed; paragraph 0030);
retrieve, from the remote computer, via the telecommunications network, a target local state for the managed devices, the target local state including one or more target control parameters of the managed devices (see Sandridge; paragraphs 0028, 0029, 0034, 0047 and 0081; Sandridge discloses detecting a temperature increase for a device. Identifying a match state for the devices from a knowledge base. Modifying, i.e. “one or more target control parameters”, the device’s behavior without deactivating it, such as changing the goal temperature to a preheat temperature, i.e. “target local state”. A master controller may store the knowledge base, in which the master controller may be a remote server. The communication is via the internet, i.e. “telecommunications network”. In other words, identifying a match state, such as the preheat temperature, i.e. “target local state”, in order to modify and set, i.e. “one or more target control parameters”, the device’s behavior);
compute a difference between the target local state and the current local state (see Sandridge; paragraphs 0028, 0029 and 0034; Sandridge discloses determining a state of a device by cross-referencing the sensor data and a comparison, i.e. “compute a difference”, to detect the match state, such as a preheat temperature, i.e. “target local state”, based on the cross referencing);
compute actions based on the difference between the target local state and the current local state, said actions to be executed by the managed devices for bringing the current local state into compliance with the target local state by changing the one or more control parameters to the one or more target control parameters of the managed devices (see Sandridge; paragraphs 0029, 0032-0034 and 0048; Sandridge discloses a device being activated may be connected to the IoT network, and deciding to issue commands, i.e. “compute actions”, to a device to address a concern. For example, determining that a device activation with a high confidence-adjusted risk has occurred, such as an activation of an oven and the setting, i.e. “one or more control parameters”, of the current temperature that is determined to be likely unintentional and determining to modify by setting, i.e. “one or more target control parameters”, the device’s behavior without deactivating it, such as setting to a preheat temperature. In other words, when an oven is activated and set, i.e. “control parameter”, with a current temperature, i.e. a “current state”, a command is executed to have the oven’s temperature modified and set, i.e. “target control parameter”, to different a temperature, i.e. “changing the one or more control parameters to the one or more target control parameters of the managed devices …”); and
communicate the actions to the managed devices, via the local network, for execution (see Sandridge; paragraphs 0034, 0048 and 0049; Sandridge discloses transmitting the commands, via the IoT network, to the target devices).
While Sandridge discloses “the electric machine having a power”, as discussed above, Sandridge does not explicitly disclose the electric machine having a peak power of at least 100kW.
In analogous art, Martinson discloses the electric machine having a peak power of at least 100kW (see Martinson; paragraphs 0024, 0182 and 0203; Martinson discloses service devices and charging devices, i.e. “electric machine”, for a facility, such as a family or apartment building, in which the service devices are configured to adjust an environment of the facility/building and the charging device is configured to charge at a power level of at least 100KW, i.e. “a peak power of at least 100kW”. The devices may be IoT devices).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Sandridge and Martinson because they both disclose features of communication between IoT devices in a building, and as such, are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Martinson’s feature of a charging device into the system of Sandridge in order to allow IoT devices in a smart home (see Sandridge; paragraphs 0017 and 0018) to include a charging device for other types of IoT devices in a family home or apartment building (see Martinson; paragraphs 0024 and 0182), thereby providing continue power for the devices.
Regarding claim 2, Sandridge and Martinson discloses all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and further the combination of Sandridge and Martinson clearly discloses wherein the local network is based on an Industrial Internet of Things (IIOT) protocol (see Sandridge; paragraphs 0055 and 0058; Sandridge discloses a mesh network for IoT devices, such as an industrial grinder machine or industrial manufacturing component, i.e. “Industrial Internet of Things (IIOT) protocol”).
Regarding claim 3, Sandridge and Martinson discloses all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and further the combination of Sandridge and Martinson clearly discloses wherein the telecommunications network is the Internet (see Sandridge; paragraph 0080; Sandridge discloses a network, for example, the internet).
Regarding claim 4, Sandridge and Martinson discloses all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and further the combination of Sandridge and Martinson clearly discloses wherein the instructions comprise an appliance state retriever that retrieves the target local state from the remote computer and stores the target local state in the memory (see Sandridge; paragraphs 0029, 0047 and 0081; Sandridge discloses identifying a state of an appliance based on the detected match, i.e. “retrieves the target local state”, from a knowledge base of a remote server and computer readable program instructions by utilizing state information of the computer readable program instructions to personalize the electronic circuitry).
Regarding claim 5, Sandridge and Martinson discloses all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and further the combination of Sandridge and Martinson clearly discloses wherein the instructions comprise an appliance state publisher that publishes the current local state to the remote computer, wherein the appliance state publisher retrieves the current local state from the memory (see Sandridge; paragraphs 0019, 0031 and 0037; Sandridge discloses a knowledge base, included in a remote server, detailing states of the devices and updating the knowledge base regarding the states, i.e. “publishes the current local state”).
Regarding claim 6, Sandridge and Martinson discloses all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and further the combination of Sandridge and Martinson clearly discloses wherein the instructions comprise an appliance state reader for computing the current local state and storing the current local state in the memory (see Sandridge; paragraphs 0029, 0047 and 0081; Sandridge discloses identifying a state of an appliance based on the detected match, i.e. “retrieves the target local state”, and computer readable program instructions by utilizing state information of the computer readable program instructions to personalize the electronic circuitry).
Regarding claim 7, Sandridge and Martinson discloses all the limitations of claim 6, as discussed above, and further the combination of Sandridge and Martinson clearly discloses wherein the appliance state reader acquires and builds the current local state using one or more integrated drivers adapted to different types of said managed devices. (see Sandridge; paragraphs 0028, 0029 and 0045; Sandridge discloses determining a state, i.e. “the current local state”, of a device by cross-referencing the sensor data and a comparison to detect the match state based on the cross referencing. Each device includes its own software, i.e. “integrated drivers adapted to…said managed devices”).
Regarding claim 8, Sandridge and Martinson discloses all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and further the combination of Sandridge and Martinson clearly discloses wherein the instructions comprise an appliance state synchronization module that computes the difference between the target local state and the current local state (see Sandridge; paragraphs 0028, 0029, 0031, 0034, 0047 and 0081; Sandridge discloses an operation for determining a state of a device by cross-referencing the sensor data and a comparison, i.e. “compute a difference”, to detect the match, i.e. “synchronization” by matching the state, i.e. “target local state”, based on the cross referencing. For example, the system compares a time of the oven's activation to a use profile stored in the knowledge base. The use profile may indicate typical times where detected activation of the oven is expected. If the time of the detected activation differs, i.e. “compute a difference”, from typical times, the confidence that the activation is intentional may be relatively low. The decision regarding the activation/deactivations is done with a tablet computer and/or master controller, in which computer readable program instructions, i.e. “appliance state synchronization module”, for carrying out the operation may execute entirely on the tablet computer, on the remote computer, partly on the tablet computer and remote computer or as a stand-alone software package).
Regarding claim 9, Sandridge and Martinson discloses all the limitations of claim 8, as discussed above, and further the combination of Sandridge and Martinson clearly discloses wherein the appliance state synchronization module determines the one or more actions to bring the current local state to the target local state (see Sandridge; paragraphs 0029, 0034, 0048 and 0049; Sandridge discloses deciding to issue commands, i.e. “determines the one or more actions”, to a device to address a concern. For example, determining that a device activation with a high confidence-adjusted risk has occurred, such as an activation of an oven that is determined to be likely unintentional and determining to send a deactivation command to the oven. In other words, since an oven was not supposed to be activated, i.e. an unintentional “current state”, the command is executed to have the oven deactivated, i.e. “bring the current local state to the target local state”).
Regarding claim 10, Sandridge and Martinson discloses all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and further the combination of Sandridge and Martinson clearly discloses wherein the instructions comprise an appliance action executor that executes the one or more actions (see Sandridge; paragraphs 0034, 0049 and 0051; Sandridge discloses the commands, i.e. “one or more actions”, being executed).
Regarding claim 11, Sandridge and Martinson discloses all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and further the combination of Sandridge and Martinson clearly discloses wherein the instructions comprise an appliance state reader that builds an updated current local state and stores the updated current local state in memory, wherein the appliance state synchronization module computes an updated difference between the target local state and the updated current local state (see Sandridge; paragraphs 0028, 0029, 0037 and 0067; Sandridge discloses determining a state of a device by cross-referencing the sensor data and a comparison, i.e. “compute a difference”, to detect the match state, i.e. “target local state”, based on the cross referencing and updating the knowledge base regarding the state, i.e. “updated current local state”, of the devices ).
Regarding claim 13, Sandridge and Martinson discloses all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and further the combination of Sandridge and Martinson clearly discloses wherein the managed devices include a local alarm engine, wherein the one or more control parameters include alarm rules of the local alarm engine, and the actions include changing the alarm rules of the local alarm engine (see Sandridge; paragraphs 0032-0034; Sandridge discloses an oven may be set, i.e. “control parameters”, to “alert user if activation confidence <95%,” while a television may be set to “alert user if activation confidence <5%, i.e. “alarm rules”. And based on the confidence modifying the device behaviors, such as oven temperature, i.e. “one or more configuration elements”).
Regarding claim 14, Sandridge and Martinson discloses all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and further the combination of Sandridge and Martinson clearly discloses wherein the managed devices includes at least one module of the local computer (see Sandridge; paragraph 0072; Sandridge discloses major components of the computer system may comprise one or more CPUs, a memory subsystem, a terminal interface, a storage interface, an I/O (Input/Output) device interface, and a network interface, all of which may be communicatively coupled, directly or indirectly, for inter-component communication via a memory bus, an I/O bus, and an I/O bus interface unit).
Regarding claim 15, Sandridge and Martinson discloses all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and further the combination of Sandridge and Martinson clearly discloses wherein the local computer is configured to initiate communication with the remote computer by a remote query and to receive communications contingent upon their association with the remote query (see Sandridge; paragraphs 0047 and 0081; Sandridge discloses tablet computer communicating with a remote server and receiving sensor data).
Regarding claim 16, Sandridge and Martinson discloses all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and further the combination of Sandridge and Martinson clearly discloses wherein the local computer has drivers corresponding to different types of managed devices, the drivers translating actions for the managed devices into languages corresponding to the type of managed device, and also to translate data received from the managed devices into the current states (see Sandridge; paragraphs 0028, 0029 and 0045; Sandridge discloses determining a state of a device by cross-referencing the sensor data and a comparison to detect the match state based on the cross referencing. Each device includes its own software, i.e. “drivers translating actions”).
Regarding claim 17, Sandridge and Martinson discloses all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and further the combination of Sandridge and Martinson clearly discloses a monitored device state acquisition module configured to detect, at the managed devices, events associated to changes in one of the current states, and wherein the local computer is configured to detect when changes in current states do not stem from the communicated actions (see Sandridge; paragraphs 0032, 0034, 0037 and 0038; Sandridge discloses an oven may be set to “alert user if activation confidence <95%,” while a television may be set to “alert user if activation confidence <5%. For example, detecting that a device was activated intentionally and continue monitoring sensor data of the devices).
Regarding claim 18, Sandridge and Martinson discloses all the limitations of claim 17, as discussed above, and further the combination of Sandridge and Martinson clearly discloses communicate actions to revert the changed current state to its prior state upon detecting that the change does not stem from the communicated actions (see Sandridge; paragraph 0035; Sandridge discloses a device, e.g. oven, being activated, e.g. turned on, due to a short circuit, i.e. “does not stem from the communicated actions”, and the system deactivating it, i.e. “changed current state to its prior state” which is off).
Regarding claim 19, Sandridge and Martinson discloses all the limitations of claim 17, as discussed above, and further the combination of Sandridge and Martinson clearly discloses generate a notification to the remote computer upon detecting that the change does not stem from the communicated actions (see Sandridge; paragraphs 0019, 0035 and 0047; Sandridge discloses a message may be sent to the user notifying the user that the oven was detected to have activated, such as, in the case of a short circuit activating the oven, i.e. “does not stem from the communicated actions”).
Regarding claim 20, the limitations are similar to the limitations recited in claim 1. As such, the same rationale discussed above for claim 1, applies equally as well to claim 20.
Regarding claim 21, Sandridge and Martinson discloses all the limitations of claim 17, as discussed above, and further the combination of Sandridge and Martinson clearly discloses wherein the managed devices include a local alarm engine, wherein the one or more control parameters include alarm actions triggered by alarm rules of the local alarm engine, and the actions include changing the alarm actions (see Sandridge; paragraphs 0032-0034; Sandridge discloses an oven may be set, i.e. “control parameters”, to “alert user if activation confidence <95%,” while a television may be set to “alert user if activation confidence <5%, i.e. “alarm rules”. And based on the confidence modifying the device behaviors, such as oven temperature, i.e. “one or more configuration elements”).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandridge et al. (U.S. 2022/0417119 A1) in view of Martinson et al. (U.S. 2024/0085754 A1), as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Seed et al. (U.S. 2022/0150324 A1).
Regarding claim 22, Sandridge and Martinson discloses all the limitations of claim 21, as discussed above. While Sandridge discloses “alarm rules”, as discussed above, the combination of Sandridge and Martinson does not explicitly disclose wherein the alarm actions include changing a sampling frequency of one of the sensors.
In analogous art, Seed discloses wherein the alarm actions include changing a sampling frequency of one of the sensors (see Seed; paragraphs 0044, 0049 and 0050; Seed discloses in an IoT system interaction patterns are monitored with various IoT devices. Recommendations are issued that cause devices and/or applications to take specific actions, such as, modifying sampling rates from sensors, i.e. “changing a sampling frequency of one of the sensors”, for publishing alerts, i.e. if/when a light or an appliance is left on, i.e. “alarm actions”).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Sandridge, Martinson and Seed because they all disclose features of communication between IoT devices in a building, and as such, are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Seed’s feature of modifying sample rates of sensors into the combined system of Sandridge and Martinson in order to provide IoT devices in a smart home (see Sandridge; paragraphs 0017 and 0018) with a more efficient usage of system resources (see Seed; paragraph 0049).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Wang et al. (U.S. 2020/0145493 A1) discloses changes to publishing and sampling rates of an IoT sensor.
Cowan et al. (U.S. 12,192,274 B1) discloses collecting and analyzing data from an IoT sensor network and take actions based on sensor data.
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 ADAM A COONEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-5:00pm (every other Fri off).
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, Umar Cheema can be reached at 571-270-3037. 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.
/A.A.C/Examiner, Art Unit 2458 12/10/25
/UMAR CHEEMA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2458