DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Non-Final Office Action per the Response to the Election/Restriction Requirement received on 9 September 2025. Claims 2 and 12 have been withdrawn. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-20 have been examined on their merits.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on 30 December 2020. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the PCT/CN2020/141521 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 20 recites: “… wherein the computer program, when executed by a processor, …” in lines 1-2. The recitation of “when” does not positively recite the subsequent limitation of “executed” as occurring.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “the first sensor” in claim 18, “a terminal device” in claim 18, and “a second sensor” in claim 19.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims 3-6, 13-16, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The following claims recite limitations that lack sufficient antecedent basis for the limitations in the claims:
Claim 3 recites “the step of …” in line 5
Claim 4 recites “the step of …” in line 3
Claim 5 recites “the step of …” in line 3
Claim 6 recites “the step of …” in line 5
Claim 13 recites “the step of …” in line 5
Claim 14 recites “the step of …” in line 3
Claim 15 recites “the step of …” in line 3
Claim 16 recites “the step of …” in line 5
Claim 1 recites “A method for controlling a smart device” line 1 and claim 20 recites “the method for controlling a smart device according to claim 1” in lines 2-3. The limitation of “a smart device” in claim 21 has antecedent support from “a smart device” in claim 1. Suggested claim language: claim 20 - “the method for controlling the smart device according to claim 1”; and has been interpreted as such for the purpose of examination.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is directed to software pre se. A claim directed to functional descriptive material, including computer programs, per se, is not patent eligible subject matter. Computer programs may be explicitly claimed as, for example, a series of code or instructions for performing functions or may be implicitly claimed as, for example, a system, a module or an apparatus. Where there is no evidence in the specification that a means which may be interpreted as software, hardware or combinations thereof necessarily includes hardware, it will be interpreted in its broadest reasonable sense as a software means, which is the case here.
Absent of definition, a claim covers both statutory and non-statutory embodiments (under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim when read in light of the specification or lack thereof, and in view of one skilled in the art) embraces subject matter that is not eligible for patent protection and therefore is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
It should be noted that functional descriptive material claimed in combination with an appropriate computer readable medium to enable the functionality to be realized is patent eligible subject matter.
The USPTO recognizes that Applicants may have claims directed to computer readable mediums that cover signals per se, which the USPTO must reject under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering both non-statutory subject matter and statutory subject matter. In an effort to assist the patent community in overcoming a rejection or potential rejection under 35 US.C. § 101 in this situation, the USPTO suggests the following approach. A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 USC. § 101 by adding the limitation "non-transitory" to the claim.
Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1
At step 1, the claim recites a method comprising of a combination of steps, therefore is a process, which is a statutory category of invention.
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “determining a relation that the first monitored data and a preset target monitored numerical value satisfy” and “determining an action resource among a plurality of preset action resources that contains a triggering condition matching with the relation as a first action resource”.
The limitation of “determining a relation that the first monitored data and a preset target monitored numerical value satisfy”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation in the mind. Where, nothing in the claim precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of the claim encompasses assessing data to ascertain other data that meets a condition. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2): The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step (e.g., deriving new data) does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another.)
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “determining an action resource among a plurality of preset action resources that contains a triggering condition matching with the relation as a first action resource”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation in the mind. Where, nothing in the claim precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of the claim encompasses assessing data to ascertain other data. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2): The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step (e.g., deriving new data) does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another.)
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “receiving first monitored data provided by a first sensor”; “extracting an execution instruction from the first action resource, and sending the execution instruction to a first smart device related to the first action resource”; and “according to the first monitored data, monitoring a first execution effect of the first smart device related to the first action resource, and according to the first execution effect, starting up a second smart device related to the first smart device or shutting down the first smart device”.
The limitation of “receiving first monitored data provided by a first sensor” represents a mere means and operation for data gathering. The limitation is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically it represents no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitations of “extracting an execution instruction from the first action resource, …”; and “according to the first monitored data, monitoring a first execution effect of the first smart device related to the first action resource, …” represent mere data gathering. The limitations of “extracting” and “monitoring” are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically they represent no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation of “… sending the execution instruction to a first smart device related to the first action resource” represents the mere output of data. The “sending” is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically it represents more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitations of “according to the first execution effect, starting up a second smart device related to the first smart device or shutting down the first smart device” are recitations of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent). “As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965).” (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the element of “receiving first monitored data provided by a first sensor”, as discussed above, represents a mere means and operation for gathering data and is an insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the limitation is well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
The limitations of “extracting an execution instruction from the first action resource, …”; and “according to the first monitored data, monitoring a first execution effect of the first smart device related to the first action resource, …”, as discussed above, represent an insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering. Further, the limitations are well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
The limitation of “… sending the execution instruction to a first smart device related to the first action resource”, as discussed above, represents an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data. Further, the courts have found limitations directed to data transmission, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-known, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”.
The limitations of “according to the first execution effect, starting up a second smart device related to the first smart device or shutting down the first smart device” represent equivalent recitations of the phrase “apply it”, wherein the courts have identified limitations that “(m)erely recit(e) the words ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent)” with the judicial exception cannot provide an inventive concept …”. (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I)).
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3:
The limitations “… first action-effect information, and the first action-effect information contains a first effect monitoring period, a first starting effect numerical value, a first current effect numerical value, a first target effect numerical value and a first effect controlling trend …” further details “the first action resource contains” in claim 1; and the claim stands rejected for the same rational as set forth above in claim 1.
Additionally, at Step 2A, prong one recites “the step of, according to the first monitored data, monitoring the first execution effect of the first smart device related to the first action resource comprises: according to the first monitored data, updating the first starting effect numerical value in the first action-effect information, and according to the target monitored numerical value, updating the first target effect numerical value in the first action-effect information; according to the first effect monitoring period in the first action-effect information, receiving the first monitored data, according to the received first monitored data, updating the first current effect numerical value in the first action-effect information, and according to the first starting effect numerical value and the first target effect numerical value, determining a current-moment-predicted-reached numerical value, according to a relation between the updated first current effect numerical value and the current-moment-predicted-reached numerical value, determining whether the first execution effect is out-of-control or under-control, and updating a determination result to a status value of the first effect controlling trend in the first action-effect information; if the first execution effect is under-control, then continuing detection in a next period; and if the first execution effect is out-of-control, then starting up the second smart device or, according to the first execution effect, selecting another action resource from the plurality of predetermined action resources as the first action resource”.
The limitation of “the step of, according to the first monitored data, monitoring the first execution effect of the first smart device related to the first action resource comprises: according to the first monitored data, updating the first starting effect numerical value in the first action-effect information …”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation by use of steps in organizing a human activit(ies).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations by managing personal behavior (i.e. determining a revised first starting effect numerical value in the first action-effect information - “… updating the first starting effect numerical value in the first action-effect information …” ) using an instruction or rule (i.e. “… according to the first monitored data …”), then it falls within the sub-grouping of “C. Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People” of the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(C)(II): “Finally, the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. It is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings.”) Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “the step of, according to the first monitored data, monitoring the first execution effect of the first smart device related to the first action resource comprises: … according to the target monitored numerical value, updating the first target effect numerical value in the first action-effect information”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation by use of steps in organizing a human activit(ies).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations by managing personal behavior (i.e. determining a revised first target effect numerical value in the first action-effect information - “… updating the first target effect numerical value in the first action-effect information” ) using an instruction or rule (i.e. “… according to the target monitored numerical value …”), then it falls within the sub-grouping of “C. Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People” of the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(C)(II): “Finally, the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. It is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings.”) Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “the step of, according to the first monitored data, monitoring the first execution effect of the first smart device related to the first action resource comprises: … according to the received first monitored data, updating the first current effect numerical value in the first action-effect information …”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation by use of steps in organizing a human activit(ies).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations by managing personal behavior (i.e. determining a revised first target effect numerical value in the first action-effect information - “… updating the first current effect numerical value in the first action-effect information …” ) using an instruction or rule (i.e. “… according to the received first monitored data …”), then it falls within the sub-grouping of “C. Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People” of the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(C)(II): “Finally, the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. It is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings.”) Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “the step of, according to the first monitored data, monitoring the first execution effect of the first smart device related to the first action resource comprises: … according to the first starting effect numerical value and the first target effect numerical value, determining a current-moment-predicted-reached numerical value …”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation in the mind. Where, nothing in the claim precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of the claim encompasses assessing data to ascertain other data. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2): The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step (e.g., deriving new data) does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another.)
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “the step of, according to the first monitored data, monitoring the first execution effect of the first smart device related to the first action resource comprises: … according to a relation between the updated first current effect numerical value and the current-moment-predicted-reached numerical value, determining whether the first execution effect is out-of-control or under-control …”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation in the mind. Where, nothing in the claim precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of the claim encompasses assessing data to ascertain other data. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2): The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step (e.g., deriving new data) does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another.)
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “the step of, according to the first monitored data, monitoring the first execution effect of the first smart device related to the first action resource comprises: … according to a relation between the updated first current effect numerical value and the current-moment-predicted-reached numerical value, … updating a determination result to a status value of the first effect controlling trend in the first action-effect information”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation by use of steps in organizing a human activit(ies).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations by managing personal behavior (i.e. determining a revised determination result to a status value of the first effect controlling trend in the first action-effect information - “… updating a determination result to a status value of the first effect controlling trend in the first action-effect information …” ) using an instruction or rule (i.e. “… according to a relation between the updated first current effect numerical value and the current-moment-predicted-reached numerical value …”), then it falls within the sub-grouping of “C. Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People” of the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(C)(II): “Finally, the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. It is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings.”) Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “the step of, according to the first monitored data, monitoring the first execution effect of the first smart device related to the first action resource comprises: … if the first execution effect is out-of-control, …, according to the first execution effect, selecting another action resource from the plurality of predetermined action resources as the first action resource”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation by use of steps in organizing a human activit(ies).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations by managing personal behavior (i.e. choosing alternative action resource from the plurality of predetermined action resources as the first action resource - “… selecting another action resource from the plurality of predetermined action resources as the first action resource …” ) using an instruction or rule (i.e. “… the first execution effect is out-of-control, …, according to the first execution effect …”), then it falls within the sub-grouping of “C. Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People” of the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(C)(II): “Finally, the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. It is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings.”) Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the claim recites “the step of, according to the first monitored data, monitoring the first execution effect of the first smart device related to the first action resource comprises: … according to the first effect monitoring period in the first action-effect information, receiving the first monitored data; … if the first execution effect is under-control, then continuing detection in a next period; and if the first execution effect is out-of-control, then starting up the second smart device …”.
The limitation of “the step of, according to the first monitored data, monitoring the first execution effect of the first smart device related to the first action resource comprises: … according to the first effect monitoring period in the first action-effect information, receiving the first monitored data” represents mere data gathering. The limitation of “receiving” is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically it represents no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation of “the step of, according to the first monitored data, monitoring the first execution effect of the first smart device related to the first action resource comprises: … if the first execution effect is under-control, then continuing detection in a next period …” represents mere data gathering. The limitation of “continuing detection” is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically it represents no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitations of “the step of, according to the first monitored data, monitoring the first execution effect of the first smart device related to the first action resource comprises: … if the first execution effect is under-control, then continuing detection in a next period; and if the first execution effect is out-of-control, then starting up the second smart device …” are recitations of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent). “As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965).” (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the element of “the step of, according to the first monitored data, monitoring the first execution effect of the first smart device related to the first action resource comprises: … according to the first effect monitoring period in the first action-effect information, receiving the first monitored data”, as discussed above, amounts to no more than mere data gathering and are insignificant extra-solution activities. Further, the limitation is well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data recited at a high level of generality to be well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
The limitation of “the step of, according to the first monitored data, monitoring the first execution effect of the first smart device related to the first action resource comprises: … if the first execution effect is under-control, then continuing detection in a next period …”, as discussed above, amounts to no more than mere data gathering and are insignificant extra-solution activities. Further, the limitation is well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data recited at a high level of generality to be well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
The limitations of “the step of, according to the first monitored data, monitoring the first execution effect of the first smart device related to the first action resource comprises: … if the first execution effect is under-control, then continuing detection in a next period; and if the first execution effect is out-of-control, then starting up the second smart device …” represent equivalent recitations of the phrase “apply it”, wherein the courts have identified limitations that “(m)erely recit(e) the words ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent)” with the judicial exception cannot provide an inventive concept …”. (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I)).
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 4:
The limitation “… a first effect-predicted-reached period” further details “the first action-effect information” in claim 3; and the claim stands rejected for the same rational as set forth above in claim 3.
Additionally, at Step 2A, prong one recites “the step of, according to the first starting effect numerical value and the first target effect numerical value, determining the current-moment-predicted-reached numerical value comprises: according to the first starting effect numerical value and the first target effect numerical value, and according to the first effect-predicted-reached period and the first effect monitoring period, determining a predictively reached effect; and according to a time difference between a current moment and an initial moment and the predictively reached effect, determining the current-moment-predicted-reached numerical value, wherein the initial moment is a moment of sending the execution instruction in the first action resource”.
The limitation of “the step of, according to the first starting effect numerical value and the first target effect numerical value, determining the current-moment-predicted-reached numerical value comprises: according to the first starting effect numerical value and the first target effect numerical value, and according to the first effect-predicted-reached period and the first effect monitoring period, determining a predictively reached effect”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation in the mind. Where, nothing in the claim precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of the claim encompasses assessing data to ascertain other data. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2): The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step (e.g., deriving new data) does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another.)
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “the step of, according to the first starting effect numerical value and the first target effect numerical value, determining the current-moment-predicted-reached numerical value comprises: ... according to a time difference between a current moment and an initial moment and the predictively reached effect, determining the current-moment-predicted-reached numerical value, wherein the initial moment is a moment of sending the execution instruction in the first action resource”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation in the mind. Where, nothing in the claim precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of the claim encompasses assessing data to ascertain other data. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2): The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step (e.g., deriving new data) does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another.)
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 5:
The limitation “… a first effect controlling parameter” further details “the first action-effect information” in claim 3; and the claim stands rejected for the same rational as set forth above in claim 3.
Additionally, at Step 2A, prong one recites “the step of, according to the relation between the updated first current effect numerical value and the current-moment-predicted-reached numerical value, determining whether the first execution effect is out-of-control or under-control comprises: according to the first effect controlling parameter in the first action-effect information and the current-moment-predicted-reached numerical value, determining an upper limit of the current-moment-predicted-reached numerical value and a lower limit of the current-moment-predicted-reached numerical value; and according to a relation between the updated first current effect numerical value and the upper limit of the current-moment-predicted-reached numerical value and the lower limit of the current-moment-predicted-reached numerical value, determining whether the first execution effect is out-of-control”.
The limitation of “the step of, according to the relation between the updated first current effect numerical value and the current-moment-predicted-reached numerical value, determining whether the first execution effect is out-of-control or under-control comprises: according to the first effect controlling parameter in the first action-effect information and the current-moment-predicted-reached numerical value, determining an upper limit of the current-moment-predicted-reached numerical value and a lower limit of the current-moment-predicted-reached numerical value”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation by use of steps in organizing a human activit(ies).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations by managing personal behavior (i.e. identifying an upper limit of the current-moment-predicted-reached numerical value and a lower limit of the current-moment-predicted-reached numerical value - “… determining an upper limit of the current-moment-predicted-reached numerical value and a lower limit of the current-moment-predicted-reached numerical value”) using an instruction or rule (i.e. “… according to the relation between the updated first current effect numerical value and the current-moment-predicted-reached numerical value …”), then it falls within the sub-grouping of “C. Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People” of the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(C)(II): “Finally, the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. It is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings.”) Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “the step of, according to the relation between the updated first current effect numerical value and the current-moment-predicted-reached numerical value, determining whether the first execution effect is out-of-control or under-control comprises: … according to a relation between the updated first current effect numerical value and the upper limit of the current-moment-predicted-reached numerical value and the lower limit of the current-moment-predicted-reached numerical value, determining whether the first execution effect is out-of-control”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation in the mind. Where, nothing in the claim precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of the claim encompasses assessing data to ascertain other data. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2): The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step (e.g., deriving new data) does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another.)
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 6:
The limitation “… second action-effect information” further details “the first action-effect information” in claim 3; and the claim stands rejected for the same rational as set forth above in claim 3.
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “the step of, according to the first monitored data, monitoring the first execution effect of the first smart device related to the first action resource, and according to the first execution effect, shutting down the first smart device comprises: … updating the second action-effect information in the first action resource corresponding to the second execution effect; and when a difference between the second execution effect and a predetermined effect exceeds a predetermined range, determining that the second execution effect is out-of-control, and according to the second execution effect, shutting down the first smart device”.
The limitation of “the step of, according to the first monitored data, monitoring the first execution effect of the first smart device related to the first action resource, and according to the first execution effect, shutting down the first smart device comprises: … updating the second action-effect information in the first action resource corresponding to the second execution effect”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation by use of steps in organizing a human activit(ies).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations by managing personal behavior (i.e. determining a revised second action-effect information in the first action resource - “… updating the second action-effect information in the first action resource …” ) using an instruction or rule (i.e. “… corresponding to the second execution effect …”), then it falls within the sub-grouping of “C. Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People” of the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(C)(II): “Finally, the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. It is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings.”) Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of the step of, according to the first monitored data, monitoring the first execution effect of the first smart device related to the first action resource, and according to the first execution effect, shutting down the first smart device comprises: … when a difference between the second execution effect and a predetermined effect exceeds a predetermined range, determining that the second execution effect is out-of-control …”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation in the mind. Where, nothing in the claim precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of the claim encompasses assessing data per a comparison of a deviation of values to a predetermined range of values to ascertain a state. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2): The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step (e.g., deriving new data) does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another.)
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “receiving second monitored data provided by a second sensor”; and “the step of, according to the first monitored data, monitoring the first execution effect of the first smart device related to the first action resource, and according to the first execution effect, shutting down the first smart device comprises: according to the second monitored data, monitoring a second execution effect of the first smart device related to the first action resource, … and according to the second execution effect, shutting down the first smart device”.
The limitation of “the step of, according to the first monitored data, monitoring the first execution effect of the first smart device related to the first action resource, and according to the first execution effect, shutting down the first smart device comprises: according to the second monitored data, monitoring a second execution effect of the first smart device related to the first action resource, …” represents mere data gathering. The limitation of “monitoring” is recited at a high level of generally and recited so generically it represents no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation of “receiving second monitored data provided by a second sensor” represents a mere means and operation for data gathering. The limitation is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically it represents no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation of “the step of, according to the first monitored data, monitoring the first execution effect of the first smart device related to the first action resource, and according to the first execution effect, shutting down the first smart device comprises: … according to the second execution effect, shutting down the first smart device” is a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent). “As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965).” (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the element of “receiving second monitored data provided by a second sensor”, as discussed above, represents a mere means and operation for gathering data and is an insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the limitation is well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
The limitation of “the step of, according to the first monitored data, monitoring the first execution effect of the first smart device related to the first action resource, and according to the first execution effect, shutting down the first smart device comprises: according to the second monitored data, monitoring a second execution effect of the first smart device related to the first action resource, …”, as discussed above, amounts to no more than mere data gathering and is an insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the limitation is well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data recited at a high level of generality to be well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
The limitation of “the step of, according to the first monitored data, monitoring the first execution effect of the first smart device related to the first action resource, and according to the first execution effect, shutting down the first smart device comprises: … according to the second execution effect, shutting down the first smart device” represents an equivalent recitation of the phrase “apply it”, wherein the courts have identified limitations that “(m)erely recit(e) the words ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent)” with the judicial exception cannot provide an inventive concept …”. (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I)).
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 7:
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “according to the triggering condition in the first action resource and the first target effect numerical value in the first action-effect information in the first action resource, determining a first effect trend corresponding to the first action resource, and according to the triggering condition in the second action resource and the second target effect numerical value in the third action-effect information in the second action resource, determining a second effect trend corresponding to the second action resource”; “when the first effect trend corresponding to the first action resource and the second effect trend corresponding to the second action resource are opposite, determining whether a status value of a parameter of no-same-effect in the second action resource is true, and whether a status value of a parameter of no-opposite-effect is false”; and “when the status value of the parameter of no-same-effect is true and the status value of the parameter of no-opposite-effect is false, determining whether an execution object in the first action resource and an execution object in the second action resource are a same one object …”.
The limitation of “according to the triggering condition in the first action resource and the first target effect numerical value in the first action-effect information in the first action resource, determining a first effect trend corresponding to the first action resource …” is a process performed by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
In the alternative, the limitation of “according to the triggering condition in the first action resource and the first target effect numerical value in the first action-effect information in the first action resource, determining a first effect trend corresponding to the first action resource …”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation in the mind. Where, nothing in the claim precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of the claim encompasses assessing data to ascertain a directional change of the data. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2): The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step (e.g., deriving new data) does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another.)
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “… according to the triggering condition in the second action resource and the second target effect numerical value in the third action-effect information in the second action resource, determining a second effect trend corresponding to the second action resource” is a process performed by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
In the alternative, the limitation of “… according to the triggering condition in the second action resource and the second target effect numerical value in the third action-effect information in the second action resource, determining a second effect trend corresponding to the second action resource”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation in the mind. Where, nothing in the claim precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of the claim encompasses assessing data to ascertain a directional change of the data. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2): The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step (e.g., deriving new data) does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another.)
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “when the first effect trend corresponding to the first action resource and the second effect trend corresponding to the second action resource are opposite, determining whether a status value of a parameter of no-same-effect in the second action resource is true, and whether a status value of a parameter of no-opposite-effect is false”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation in the mind. Where, nothing in the claim precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of the claim encompasses assessing data to ascertain a characteristic of the data. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2): The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step (e.g., deriving new data) does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another.)
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “when the first effect trend corresponding to the first action resource and the second effect trend corresponding to the second action resource are opposite, determining whether a status value of a parameter of no-same-effect in the second action resource is true, and whether a status value of a parameter of no-opposite-effect is false”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation in the mind. Where, nothing in the claim precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of the claim encompasses assessing data to ascertain a characteristic of the data. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2): The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step (e.g., deriving new data) does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another.)
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “when the status value of the parameter of no-same-effect is true and the status value of the parameter of no-opposite-effect is false, determining whether an execution object in the first action resource and an execution object in the second action resource are a same one object …”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation in the mind. Where, nothing in the claim precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of the claim encompasses assessing data to ascertain a characteristic of the data. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2): The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step (e.g., deriving new data) does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another.)
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the claim recites “triggering, by the received first monitored data provided by the first sensor, the second action resource, wherein the second action resource comprises third action-effect information, and the third action-effect information contains a second target effect numerical value”; and “if yes, then continuing executing the first action resource, and terminating executing the second action resource, and if no, then continuing executing the first action resource, and starting to execute the second action resource”.
The limitation of “triggering, by the received first monitored data provided by the first sensor, the second action resource, wherein the second action resource comprises third action-effect information, and the third action-effect information contains a second target effect numerical value” represents mere data gathering. The limitation of “triggering” is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically it represents no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitations of “if yes, then continuing executing the first action resource, and terminating executing the second action resource, and if no, then continuing executing the first action resource, and starting to execute the second action resource” are recitations of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent). “As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965).” (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the element of “triggering, by the received first monitored data provided by the first sensor, the second action resource, wherein the second action resource comprises third action-effect information, and the third action-effect information contains a second target effect numerical value”, as discussed above, represents an insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering. Further, the limitation is well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
The limitations of “if yes, then continuing executing the first action resource, and terminating executing the second action resource, and if no, then continuing executing the first action resource, and starting to execute the second action resource” represent equivalent recitations of the phrase “apply it”, wherein the courts have identified limitations that “(m)erely recit(e) the words ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent)” with the judicial exception cannot provide an inventive concept …”. (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I)).
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 8:
At step 2A, prong two, the claim recites “the first action-effect information is stored as a sub-resource of the first action resource, or is stored as a parameter of the first action resource”; and “the triggering condition in the first action resource is stored as a parameter of the first action resource”.
The limitations of “the first action-effect information is stored as a sub-resource of the first action resource, or is stored as a parameter of the first action resource”; and “the triggering condition in the first action resource is stored as a parameter of the first action resource” represent mere data gathering. The limitations of “stored” are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically they represent no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the elements of “the first action-effect information is stored as a sub-resource of the first action resource, or is stored as a parameter of the first action resource”; and “the triggering condition in the first action resource is stored as a parameter of the first action resource”, as discussed above, represents an insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering. Further, the limitations are well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 9:
The limitation “… first checking information” further details “… the first action resource …” in claim 8; and the claim stands rejected for the same rational as set forth above in claim 8.
At step 2A, prong two, the claim recites “… the first checking information is stored as a sub-resource of the first action resource”.
The limitation of “… the first checking information is stored as a sub-resource of the first action resource” represents mere data gathering. The limitation of “stored” is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically it represents no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the element of “… the first checking information is stored as a sub-resource of the first action resource”, as discussed above, represents an insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering. Further, the limitation is well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
Considering the additional element individually and the claim as a whole, the additional element does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 10:
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “receiving a triggering instruction inputted by a user” and “extracting the preset target monitored numerical value from the received triggering instruction”.
The limitations of “receiving a triggering instruction inputted by a user” and “extracting the preset target monitored numerical value from the received triggering instruction” represent mere data gathering. The limitations of “receiving” and “extracting” are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically they represent no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the elements of “receiving a triggering instruction inputted by a user” and “extracting the preset target monitored numerical value from the received triggering instruction”, as discussed above, represent insignificant extra-solution activities of data gathering. Further, the limitations are well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 11:
Claim 11 represents an equivalent machine (i.e. a smart gateway) claim to claim 1 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same rationale as set forth in claim 1.
Additionally, at step 2A, prong two, the claim recites “the smart gateway comprises a processor; a memory, wherein the memory is communicatively connected to the processor”; and “wherein the memory stores at least one instruction, and the at least one instruction, when executed by the processor, is configured for implementing operations for controlling a smart device”.
The limitations of “the smart gateway comprises a processor; a memory, wherein the memory is communicatively connected to the processor”; and “wherein the memory stores at least one instruction, and the at least one instruction, when executed by the processor, is configured for implementing operations for controlling a smart device” are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the elements of “the smart gateway comprises a processor; a memory, wherein the memory is communicatively connected to the processor”; and “wherein the memory stores at least one instruction, and the at least one instruction, when executed by the processor, is configured for implementing operations for controlling a smart device” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 13:
Claim 13 represents an equivalent machine (i.e. a smart gateway) claim to claim 3 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same rationale as set forth in claim 3.
Claim 14:
Claim 14 represents an equivalent machine (i.e. a smart gateway) claim to claim 4 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same rationale as set forth in claim 4.
Claim 15:
Claim 15 represents an equivalent machine (i.e. a smart gateway) claim to claim 5 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same rationale as set forth in claim 5.
Claim 16:
Claim 16 represents an equivalent machine (i.e. a smart gateway) claim to claim 6 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same rationale as set forth in claim 6.
Claim 17:
Claim 17 represents an equivalent machine (i.e. a smart gateway) claim to claim 7 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same rationale as set forth in claim 7.
Claim 18:
Claim 18 represents an equivalent machine (i.e. a system) claim to claim 1 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same rationale as set forth in claim 1.
The limitation of “… the smart gateway according to claim 11” stands rejected for the same rationale as set forth in claim 11 by virtue of the incorporation of “the smart gateway” of claim 11 into claim 18.
At step 2A, prong two, the claim recites “the first sensor, communicatively connected to the smart gateway, configured for continuously collecting the first monitored data and sending the first monitored data to the smart gateway”; and “a terminal device, communicatively connected to the smart gateway, configured for providing a triggering instruction to the smart gateway, wherein the triggering instruction contains a target monitored numerical value of a same type as a type of the monitored data”.
The limitations of “the first sensor, communicatively connected to the smart gateway …”; and “a terminal device, communicatively connected to the smart gateway … ” are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitation of “the first sensor … configured for continuously collecting the first monitored data …” represents a mere means and operation for data gathering. The limitation is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically it represents no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation of “the first sensor … configured for continuously … sending the first monitored data to the smart gateway” represents a mere means and operation for the output of data. The “sending” is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically it represents more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation of “a terminal device … configured for providing a triggering instruction to the smart gateway, wherein the triggering instruction contains a target monitored numerical value of a same type as a type of the monitored data” represents a mere means and operation for the output of data. The “sending” is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically it represents more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “the first sensor, communicatively connected to the smart gateway …”; and “a terminal device, communicatively connected to the smart gateway … ” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
The limitation of “the first sensor … configured for continuously collecting the first monitored data …”, as discussed above, represents a mere means and operation for gathering data and is an insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the limitation is well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
The limitation of “the first sensor … configured for continuously … sending the first monitored data to the smart gateway”, as discussed above, represents a mere means and operation for outputting data and is an insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the courts have found limitations directed to data transmission, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-known, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”.
The limitation of “a terminal device … configured for providing a triggering instruction to the smart gateway, wherein the triggering instruction contains a target monitored numerical value of a same type as a type of the monitored data”, as discussed above, represents a mere means and operation for outputting data and is an insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the courts have found limitations directed to data transmission, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-known, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 19:
At step 2A, prong two, the claim recites “… a second sensor, communicatively connected to the smart gateway, configured for continuously collecting second monitored data and sending the second monitored data to the smart gateway”.
The limitation of “… a second sensor, communicatively connected to the smart gateway …” is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitation of “… a second sensor … configured for continuously collecting second monitored data …” represents a mere means and operation for data gathering. The limitation is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically it represents no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation of “… a second sensor … configured for continuously … sending the second monitored data to the smart gateway” represents a mere means and operation for the output of data. The “sending” is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically it represents more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “… a second sensor, communicatively connected to the smart gateway …” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
The limitation of “… a second sensor … configured for continuously collecting second monitored data …”, as discussed above, represents a mere means and operation for gathering data and is an insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the limitation is well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
The limitation of “… a second sensor … configured for continuously … sending the second monitored data to the smart gateway”, as discussed above, represents a mere means and operation for outputting data and is an insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the courts have found limitations directed to data transmission, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-known, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 20:
Claim 20 represents an equivalent computer-readable storage medium claim to claim 1 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same rationale as set forth in claim 1.
The limitation of “… the method for controlling a smart device according to claim 1” stands rejected for the same rationale as set forth in claim 1 by virtue of the incorporation of “the method” of claim 1 into claim 20.
Additionally, at step 2A, prong two, the judicial is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “(a) computer-readable storage medium, storing a computer program, wherein the computer program, when executed by a processor …”.
The limitations of “(a) computer-readable storage medium, storing a computer program, wherein the computer program, when executed by a processor …” is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, these additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the elements of “(a) computer-readable storage medium, storing a computer program, wherein the computer program, when executed by a processor …”, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
Considering the additional element individually and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-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.
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.
(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 1 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 10,671,501 B1 (hereinafter Haslam).
As per claim 1, Haslam discloses a method for controlling a smart device (col. 5, lines 54-59 and col. 10, lines 35-63; i.e. col. 10, lines 35-39: “Based on the various types of parameters, and any detected divergence of the sensor data 114 from the parameters, the monitor module 110 may infer an atypical operational state of the monitored system 102, and may perform the appropriate action(s).”), wherein the method comprises:
receiving first monitored data provided by a first sensor (col. 3, lines 64 - col. 4, lines 14, col. 6, lines 41-42, and Fig. 1, element 104);
determining a relation that the first monitored data and a preset target monitored numerical value satisfy (col. 4, lines 26-31, col. 6, lines 46-51, col. 8, lines 15-63, col. 10, lines 55-63; i.e. col. 6, lines 46-51: “The monitor module 110 can retrieve parameter data 124 that is stored in the data storage 106, and compare the current sensor data 114 to the parameter data 124 to determine whether the system 102 is currently operating is its typical (e.g., normal, acceptable) state as defined by the parameter data.”);
determining an action resource among a plurality of preset action resources that contains a triggering condition matching with the relation as a first action resource (col. 4, lines 40-47, col. 6, lines 29-40 and 52-54, col. 11, lines 51-60, col. 12, lines 15-26; i.e. col. 4, lines 40-47: “In some instances, the monitor device can autonomously perform certain action(s) to respond to the atypical state, to attempt to address the problem and/or mitigate potential damage caused by the problem. For example, the monitor device can control a water shutoff valve that enables the device to cut off the water supply to the monitored system in response to a possible leak.”, col. 6, lines 52-54: “If the current system state is determined to be atypical, based on this comparison, the monitor module 110 can perform one or more actions. In some instances, the action(s) 126 include sending a notification 126 to one or more recipients, such as an alert indicating a possible problem with the system 102.”, and col. 11, lines 51-55: “The triggering event may be a received communication, a detection of a particular application state, another operation performed by the same or a different process, and so forth. A real time operation may also be described as a dynamic operation. Real time operations may include operations that are automatically executed in response to the triggering event without requiring human input.”);
extracting an execution instruction from the first action resource, and sending the execution instruction to a first smart device related to the first action resource (col. 10, lines 35-63; i.e. col. 10, lines 35-39: “Based on the various types of parameters, and any detected divergence of the sensor data 114 from the parameters, the monitor module 110 may infer an atypical operational state of the monitored system 102, and may perform the appropriate action(s). In some implementations, the action(s) may be configurable for a particular system 102, by the vendor of the system 102, the vendor of the monitor device 104, and/or some other party.”); and
according to the first monitored data, monitoring a first execution effect of the first smart device related to the first action resource (col. 12, lines 23-27 and Fig. 3, element 310-314; i.e. “If the current state is atypical (308) (e.g., outside the bounds of expected behavior as defined by the parameter data), action(s) may be performed (312) as described above. The monitoring may then be continued (310), based on the current stream of sensor data 114.”), and according to the first execution effect, shutting down the first smart device (col. 4, lines 40-47 and Fig. 3, element 310-314; i.e. col. 4, lines 40-47: “In some instances, the monitor device can autonomously perform certain action(s) to respond to the atypical state, to attempt to address the problem and/or mitigate potential damage caused by the problem. For example, the monitor device can control a water shutoff valve that enables the device to cut off the water supply to the monitored system in response to a possible leak.”).
As per claim 20, Haslam discloses a computer-readable storage medium, storing a computer program, wherein the computer program, when executed by a processor, implements the method for controlling a smart device according to claim 1 (col. 6, lines 9-11 and 24-29 and claim 20 stands rejected for the same rationale as set for in claim 1 by virtue of incorporation of “the method for controlling a smart device according to claim 1” into claim 20).
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 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 10,671,501 B1 (hereinafter Haslam) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0051901 A1 (hereinafter Saintellemy).
As per claim 10, Haslam does not expressly teach receiving a triggering instruction inputted by a user, and extracting the preset target monitored numerical value from the received triggering instruction.
However Saintellemy, in an analogous art of automated devices (pg. 2, par. [0037] and pg. 3, par. [0058]), teaches the missing limitations of receiving a triggering instruction inputted by a user (i.e. selection of a programmed schedule), and extracting a preset target monitored numerical value from the received triggering instruction (pg. 5, par. [0078]: “This temperature setpoint and/or humidity setpoint may be selected based on a user-inputted command or a preprogrammed schedule. The HVAC interface 36 can further control various relays of the HVAC system 40 for heating, cooling, humidifying or dehumidifying based on the received temperature set point and/or humidity setpoint.”) for the purpose of controlling automated devices (pg. 3, par. [0058] and [0059]).
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 modify the teaching of Haslam to include the addition of the limitations of receiving a triggering instruction inputted by a user (i.e. selection of a programmed schedule), and extracting a preset target monitored numerical value from the received triggering instruction to enhance air quality in an environment (Saintellemy: pg. 5, [0079]).
Claims 11, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saintellemy in view of Haslam.
As per claim 11, Saintellemy substantially teaches the Applicant’s claimed invention. Saintellemy teaches a smart gateway (pg. 7, par. [0103] and Fig. 5, element 2; i.e. “… the thermostat system 2 acts as a gateway for the network connected home automated devices 116 to the wide area network 16.”), wherein the smart gateway comprises:
a processor (pg. 4, par. [0068]); and
a memory, wherein the memory is communicatively connected to the processor; wherein the memory stores at least one instruction, and the at least one instruction, when executed by the processor, is configured for implementing operations for controlling a smart device (pg. 4, par. [0068], pg. 5, par. [0070], and pg. 7, par. [0104]; i.e. [0070]: “The HVAC interface module 36 may be further operable to control the HVAC system 40.” and [0104]: “The thermostat system 2 of FIG. 6 is similar to that of FIG. 2 but further includes at least one additional device interface 204 that is coupled to the control module 32.”),
the operations comprise:
receiving first monitored data provided by a first sensor (pg. 5, par. [0075]; i.e. “The HVAC interface module 36 includes a temperature comparator 46 having at least one input 48 for receiving a control signal indicating a desired temperature setpoint and a current temperature. For example, the current temperature may be sensed by the environmental monitoring module 44 (FIG. 2).”);
determining a relation that the first monitored data and a preset target monitored numerical value satisfy (pg. 5, par. [0075]; i.e. “The temperature comparator 46 compares the sensed current temperature with the temperature setpoint and outputs a control signal to the HVAC system 40.”); and
determining an action resource (pg. 5, par. [0075]; i.e. “The temperature comparator 46 compares the sensed current temperature with the temperature setpoint and outputs a control signal to the HVAC system 40.”).
Not explicitly taught are determining an action resource among a plurality of preset action resources that contains a triggering condition matching with the relation as a first action resource;
extracting an execution instruction from the first action resource, and sending the execution instruction to a first smart device related to the first action resource; and
according to the first monitored data, monitoring a first execution effect of the first smart device related to the first action resource, and according to the first execution effect, starting up a second smart device related to the first smart device or shutting down the first smart device.
However Haslam, in an analogous art of monitoring a system (col. 1, lines 25-33), teaches the missing limitations of determining an action resource among a plurality of preset action resources that contains a triggering condition matching with a relation as a first action resource (col. 4, lines 40-47, col. 6, lines 29-40 and 52-54, col. 11, lines 51-60, col. 12, lines 15-26; i.e. col. 4, lines 40-47: “In some instances, the monitor device can autonomously perform certain action(s) to respond to the atypical state, to attempt to address the problem and/or mitigate potential damage caused by the problem. For example, the monitor device can control a water shutoff valve that enables the device to cut off the water supply to the monitored system in response to a possible leak.”, col. 6, lines 52-54: “If the current system state is determined to be atypical, based on this comparison, the monitor module 110 can perform one or more actions. In some instances, the action(s) 126 include sending a notification 126 to one or more recipients, such as an alert indicating a possible problem with the system 102.”, and col. 11, lines 51-55: “The triggering event may be a received communication, a detection of a particular application state, another operation performed by the same or a different process, and so forth. A real time operation may also be described as a dynamic operation. Real time operations may include operations that are automatically executed in response to the triggering event without requiring human input.”);
extracting an execution instruction from the first action resource, and sending the execution instruction to a first smart device related to the first action resource (col. 10, lines 35-63; i.e. col. 10, lines 35-39: “Based on the various types of parameters, and any detected divergence of the sensor data 114 from the parameters, the monitor module 110 may infer an atypical operational state of the monitored system 102, and may perform the appropriate action(s). In some implementations, the action(s) may be configurable for a particular system 102, by the vendor of the system 102, the vendor of the monitor device 104, and/or some other party.”); and
according to first monitored data (col. 3, lines 64 - col. 4, lines 14 and col. 6, lines 41-42), monitoring a first execution effect of the first smart device related to the first action resource (col. 12, lines 23-27 and Fig. 3, element 310-314; i.e. “If the current state is atypical (308) (e.g., outside the bounds of expected behavior as defined by the parameter data), action(s) may be performed (312) as described above. The monitoring may then be continued (310), based on the current stream of sensor data 114.”), and according to the first execution effect, shutting down the first smart device (col. 4, lines 40-47 and Fig. 3, element 310-314; i.e. col. 4, lines 40-47: “In some instances, the monitor device can autonomously perform certain action(s) to respond to the atypical state, to attempt to address the problem and/or mitigate potential damage caused by the problem. For example, the monitor device can control a water shutoff valve that enables the device to cut off the water supply to the monitored system in response to a possible leak.”) for the purpose controlling a system (col. 1, lines 25-33).
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 modify the teaching of Saintellemy to include the addition of the limitations of determining an action resource among a plurality of preset action resources that contains a triggering condition matching with a relation as a first action resource; extracting an execution instruction from the first action resource, and sending the execution instruction to a first smart device related to the first action resource; and according to first monitored data, monitoring a first execution effect of the first smart device related to the first action resource to ensure optimal monitoring of a system (Haslam: col. 5, lines 15-18).
As per claim 18, Saintellemy substantially teaches a system for controlling a smart device, wherein the system comprises:
the smart gateway according to claim 11 (claim 18 stands rejected for the same rationale as set for in claim 11 by virtue of incorporation of “the smart gateway according to claim 11” into claim 18);
the first sensor, communicatively connected to the smart gateway, configured for collecting the first monitored data and sending the first monitored data to the smart gateway (pg. 5, par. [0075]; i.e. “The HVAC interface module 36 includes a temperature comparator 46 having at least one input 48 for receiving a control signal indicating a desired temperature setpoint and a current temperature. For example, the current temperature may be sensed by the environmental monitoring module 44 (FIG. 2).”); and
a terminal device, communicatively connected to the smart gateway, configured for providing a triggering instruction (i.e. selection of a programmed schedule) to the smart gateway (pg. 6, par. [0091]; i.e. “The control module 32 can further receive over the wide-area network 16, such as the internet, one or more commands for accessing one or more of the home automated devices. The one or more commands are received via the wide-area communication module 8. The commands may be inputted using a user-operable device connected to the wide-area network, such as computer or mobile device (ex: tablet, smartphone).”), wherein the triggering instruction contains a target monitored numerical value of a same type as a type of the monitored data (pg. 5, par. [0078]: “This temperature setpoint and/or humidity setpoint may be selected based on a user-inputted command or a preprogrammed schedule. The HVAC interface 36 can further control various relays of the HVAC system 40 for heating, cooling, humidifying or dehumidifying based on the received temperature set point and/or humidity setpoint.”).
However Haslam, in an analogous art of monitoring a system (col. 1, lines 25-33), teaches the missing limitation of continuously collecting (col. 12, lines 15-27 and Fig. 3) for the purpose controlling a system (col. 1, lines 25-33).
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 modify the teaching of Saintellemy to include the addition of the limitation of continuously collecting to ensure optimal monitoring of a system (Haslam: col. 5, lines 15-18).
As per claim 19, Saintellemy teaches a second sensor (Fig. 1, element 132; i.e. an external environmental monitoring device including one or more sensors), communicatively connected to the smart gateway (pgs. 7-8, par. [0106]; i.e. “As illustrated, the exemplary thermostat system 2′ includes … a sensor interface 204d for accessing one or more external monitoring devices 132.”), configured for collecting second monitored data and sending the second monitored data to the smart gateway (pgs. 7-8, par. [0101], [0106] and [0114] and pg. 9, par. [0120]).
However Haslam, in an analogous art of monitoring a system (col. 1, lines 25-33), teaches the missing limitation of continuously collecting (col. 12, lines 15-27 and Fig. 3) for the purpose controlling a system (col. 1, lines 25-33).
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 modify the teaching of Saintellemy to include the addition of the limitation of continuously collecting to ensure optimal monitoring of a system (Haslam: col. 5, lines 15-18).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following references are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to monitoring and control systems.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2001/0048030 A1 discloses a wireless damper include a register, a controller regulating the amount of air flow provided by the register, and a radio frequency communications circuit.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0153106 A1 discloses an appliance controller comprising an appliance including demand response settings.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0343229 A1 discloses intelligent controllers, and methods incorporated within intelligent controllers, that monitor a response of a controlled environment in order to effectively control one or more systems that control the environment.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0306458 A1 discloses an air distribution apparatus that serves as a single sensing device for both lighting, LiFi, and HVAC functions that are operable on a single platform by building automation systems.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0201678 A1 discloses a smart controller continuously monitors data for determining in real time if there is a likelihood that an asset will be shut down and, if so, recommends a new setpoint at which the asset will continue to operate but will not lead to tripping of the system.
European Patent Publication No. EP 3 119 039 A1 discloses a method and an apparatus for controlling an intelligent device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER L NORTON whose telephone number is (571)272-3694. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:30 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, Robert Fennema can be reached at 571-272-2748. 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.
/JENNIFER L NORTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2117