DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office Action in response to the Amendment/Remarks received on 21 April 2026. Claims 1, 3-6, 11, 13-16, and 20 have been amended. Claims 2 and 12 were previously withdrawn.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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, pg. 12, filed 21 April 2026, with respect to objected claims 3-6 and 13-16 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the claim amendments filed on 21 April 2026. The objections of claims 3-6 and 13-16 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, pg. 12-13, filed 21 April 2026, with respect to the claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 21 January 2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the claim amendments. Claims 18 and 19 are no longer interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, pg. 13, filed 21 April 2026, with respect to rejected claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 directed to non-statutory subject matter have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the claim amendments filed on 21 April 2026. The rejection of claim 20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, pgs. 13-15, filed 21 April 2026, with respect to rejected claim 1, 3-11, and 13-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 directed to abstract ideas have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the Applicant’s argument,
Here, claim 1 requires a processor, server, or gateway to receive data from a temperature sensor, determine relationships between monitored data and target values using a structured action resource containing specific action-effect parameters (effect monitoring period, starting/current/target effect values, and controlling trend), send execution instructions to a smart air conditioner, and monitor execution effects to physically start up or shut down climate-control equipment. The human mind is not equipped to receive electronic signals from a temperature sensor, transmit control instructions to a networked smart air conditioner via a gateway, or monitor real-time HVAC execution effects to trigger coordinated physical actuation of a second unit. See SRI Int'l, Inc. V. Cisco Sys., Inc., 930 F.3d 1295, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (declining to identify network monitoring as abstract because "the human mind is not equipped to detect suspicious activity by using network monitors and analyzing network packets"); Thales Visionix, Inc. V. United States, 850 F.3d 1343, 1347-48 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (method involving specific inertial sensors and specific configuration was not abstract). Accordingly, claim 1 as a whole is not directed to a mental process or abstract idea. (see Remarks, pg. 14, paragraph 3)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Examiner recognizes the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “receive electronic signals from a temperature sensor” and “monitor real-time HVAC execution effects”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In addition, the limitations of “a processor, a server or a gateway, wherein the method comprises: receiving first monitored data provided by a first sensor, wherein the first sensor comprises a temperature sensor”; “sending the execution instruction to a first smart device related to the first action resource, wherein the first smart device comprises a smart air conditioner”; and 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, wherein the second smart device comprises a smart air conditioner have been treated under step 2A, prong two and step 2B of the subject matter eligibility requirement and not that of Step 2A, prong one.
Further, the applicant has not addressed how/why the claim limitations directed to “determine relationships between monitored data and target values using a structured action resource containing specific action-effect parameters (effect monitoring period, starting/current/target effect values, and controlling trend)” are so complex they can’t be perform within the realm of the human mind including the use of a physical aid (e.g. pen and paper; see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), III. Also, the examiner respectfully notes the claims are neither directed to detecting suspicious activity by using network monitors and analyzing network packets nor any specific structure of a sensor. Hence, the applicant’s arguments are found unpersuasive.
In regards to the applicant’s argument,
As stated in claim 1 of the present application, it 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, monitoring a first execution effect of the first smart device related to the first action resource, starting up a second smart device related to the first smart device or shutting down the first smart device". This is analogous to the integration found patent-eligible in Diamond V. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 (1981), where a mathematical formula was integrated into a rubber- curing process. Here, any data-processing steps are inseparable from the physical device- control process: acquiring thermal data, predicting reached effects, determining out-of-control states, and physically actuating or de-actuating climate-control equipment. (see Remarks, pg. 14, paragraph 3 – pg. 15, paragraph 1)
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The examiner maintains the limitations directed to “starting up a second smart device related to the first smart device or shutting down the first smart device” (i.e. turning on or off a smart device) are no more than a mere recitations the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) as set forth in step 2A, prong two and step 2B of the subject matter eligibility requirement in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 21 January 2026. In step 2A, prong two, “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)) Further, in step 2B, 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)) Additionally, the examiner notes the additional elements in Diamond v. Diehr as a whole provided eligibility and did not merely recite a recitation of “apply it” (or an equivalent). The claim in Diamond v. Diehr recited specific limitations of monitoring an elapsed time since a mold was closed, constantly measuring a temperature in a mold cavity, repetitively calculating a cure time by inputting the measured temperature into an Arrhenius equation, and opening a press automatically when a calculated cure time and elapsed time are equivalent. 450 U.S. at 179, 209 USPQ at 5, n. 5. The specific limitations act in concert to transform raw, uncured rubber into cured molded rubber. 450 U.S. at 177-78, 209 USPQ at 4. Hence, the Applicant’s arguments are found unpersuasive.
With respect to the Applicant’s argument,
Furthermore, should the claim be deemed to contain an abstract idea at Alice Step 2B, it nonetheless recites an inventive concept. The ordered combination of (a) a temperature sensor providing monitored data to a gateway, (b) an action resource with parameterized action-effect information defining predictive control windows, and (c) automated startup/shutdown of a second smart air conditioner based on out-of-control determinations, is not well-understood, routine, or conventional activity in the smart-home art. The specification describes this architecture as solving the technical problem of inefficient, uncoordinated smart-device operation. The claim therefore recites "something more" than any abstract idea itself. (see Remarks, pg. 15, paragraph 2)
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The applicant has set forth a broad and conclusionary statement asserting the judicial exception is “not well-understood” without providing any specific arguments/rationales/evidence as to how/why the previously presented limitations amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further, the applicant has set forth an advantage of use (i.e. a benefit of “… solving the technical problem of inefficient, uncoordinated smart-device operation.”) without providing any arguments/rationales/evidence to how/why the previously additional elements amount to an improvement (i.e. enhancement) in the functioning of a computer or an improvement (i.e. enhancement) to another technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a); i.e. The applicant has failed to provide any arguments/rationales/evidence as to how/why the claimed limitations provide an improvement (i.e. enhancement) in the functioning of a computer or an improvement (i.e. enhancement) to turning on or turning off a smart device). Hence, the applicant’s arguments are found unpersuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, pgs. 15-17, filed 21 April 2026, with respect to rejected claims 1 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the claim amendments filed on 21 April 2026. The rejections of claims 1 and 20 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, pgs. 15-17, filed 21 April 2026, with respect to rejected claims 10, 11, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the claim amendments filed on 21 April 2026. The rejections of claims 10, 11, 18, and 19 have been withdrawn.
Claims 3-6 and 13-16 stand objected to and claims 1, 3-11, and 13-20 stand objected to under 35 U.S.C. 101 as set forth below.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites “A method for controlling a smart device, applied to a processor or a gateway …” in lines 1-2 has been interpreted, given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, as a method is implemented by a processor, a server, or a gateway.
Claim Objections
Claims 3-6 and 13-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 recites the grammatical issue of “the according to …” in line 5.
Claim 4 recites the grammatical issue of “the according to …” in line 3.
Claim 5 recites the grammatical issue of “the according to …” in line 3.
Claim 6 recites the grammatical issue of “the according to …” in line 5.
Claim 13 recites the grammatical issue of “the according to …” in line 6.
Claim 14 recites the grammatical issue of “the according to …” in line 3.
Claim 15 recites the grammatical issue of “the according to …” in line 3.
Claim 16 recites the grammatical issue of “the according to …” in line 5.
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.
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, … wherein the first action resource contains 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”.
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, … wherein the first action resource contains 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”, 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 “a processor, a server or a gateway”; “receiving first monitored data provided by a first sensor, wherein the first sensor comprises a temperature”; “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, wherein the first smart device comprises a smart air conditioner”; 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, wherein the second smart device comprises a smart air conditioner”.
The limitations of “a processor, a server or a 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 limitations “… the first smart device comprises a smart air conditioner” and “… the second smart device comprises a smart air conditioner” are generally recited at a high level of generality and merely limit the abstract ideas to a field of use. (MPEP 2106.07(a)): “similar to how limiting the computer implemented abstract idea in Flook to petrochemical and oil-refining industries was insufficient. See e.g., Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-90, 198 USPQ 193, 197-98 (1978) (limiting use of mathematical formula to use in particular industries did not amount to an inventive concept).”). The Courts have found “a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible ‘simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.’ Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.” (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The limitation of “receiving first monitored data provided by a first sensor, wherein the first sensor comprises a temperature” 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 additional elements of “a processor, a server or a 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 “receiving first monitored data provided by a first sensor”, as discussed above, represent 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 “… the first smart device comprises a smart air conditioner” and “… the second smart device comprises a smart air conditioner” merely limit the abstract idea to a field of use. Wherein, limiting the invention to a field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
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:
At step 2A, prong one recites “the 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 additional 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 non-transitory 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 the 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) non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, storing a computer program, wherein the computer program, when the computer program is executed by a processor …”.
The limitations of “(a) non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, storing a computer program, wherein the computer program, when the computer program is 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) non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, storing a computer program, wherein the computer program, when the computer program is 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.
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 air conditioning systems, home automation systems and monitoring and control systems.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2002/0152298 A1 discloses a control system for operating and integrating automated applications in a small building environment.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0203785 A1 discloses systems, apparatus, and methods for controlling environmental maintenance modules (e.g. HVAC units) using sensors
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0032283 A1 discloses monitoring and controlling temperature in a data center having a plurality of systems.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0200787 A1 discloses a monitoring device for use in an automation system, such as for a home, warehouse, or any type of structure.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
Prosecution Insights