DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1-5-2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
The 112 rejection was withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Applicant submits: “that Anderson discusses a parent-client device relationship that can be managed via a learning portal. This, however, does not teach or suggest what is specifically claimed, namely, inter alia, controlling functionality of a smart home system based on an event and provided information related to people currently at a home. After review of the entirety of the Anderson reference, Applicant submits that Anderson is silent as to such functionality. At most, Anderson discusses a device controlling another device; however, this is silent as to the specifically recited control of a smart home security system (not just a device) based on information related to i) an action, ii) identity of a person and iii) associated Wi-Fi client device of the person.”; the examiner’s position is that: first, applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., smart home security system) 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). Second, Anderson discloses in par. 0067 providing internet access based on task and/or accomplishment of the person; thereby, providing information related to people currently at a home that is associated with the Wi-Fi network to a smart home system, corresponding to an action and identity of the person; and providing internet access in a home network is part of the functionality of a smart home system.
The rest of the arguments they fall for the same reasons as shown above. The rejection of record stands.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Anderson 20220398934.
As to claim 1, Anderson discloses a method comprising steps of: monitoring people and Wi-Fi client devices that connect and operate on a Wi-Fi network (see abstract; par. 0042); responsive to an event, providing information related to people currently at a home that is associated with the Wi-Fi network to a home system (see par. 0064, 0066), the information corresponding to of an action and identity of a person and an associated Wi-Fi client device from the Wi-Fi client devices that is associated with the person (see par. 0039, 0067, 0070); and controlling, based on the event and provided information, functionality of the device in the home system (see par. 0071-0072). Anderson does not use the word “smart” for the home. However, a smart home is defined as a home equipped with lighting, heating, and electronic devices that can be controlled remotely by phone, computer, or mobile device and since the child devices 40a-40c are electronic devices controlled remotely to enact the parent control, it can be said that it is part of a smart home or equivalent to a smart home device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention that Anderson’s system qualifies as a smart home since the child devices 40a-40c are controlled remotely to enact the parent control; thereby reading in the limitation.
As to claim 2, Anderson discloses the method of claim 1, wherein each Wi-Fi client device is assigned with a person [S210] (see par. 0060,0064, 0070).
As to claim 3, Anderson discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the steps further include: responsive to a Wi-Fi client device connecting to the Wi-Fi network (see par. 0020); receiving an indication from a user assigning the Wi-Fi client device to a person (see par. 0020, 0046). Anderson does not explicitly disclose responsive to a new Wi-Fi client device connecting to the Wi-Fi network; however, it would be obvious that if the child and/or parent log in with his account with a new device, it will produce the same predictable results of assigning the Wi-Fi client device to his respective account. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention that responsive to a new or old Wi-Fi client device connecting to the Wi-Fi network and the respective user log in, it is receiving an indication from a user assigning the Wi-Fi client device to a person, and allowing the device to function as a parent or child device.
As to claim 4, Anderson discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the information related to people include detection of a specific Wi-Fi client device being on the Wi-Fi network where the specific Wi-Fi client device is previously assigned to a person [using MAC addresses] (see par. 0060).
As to claim 17, Anderson discloses a cloud service comprising one or more processors and a network interface (see par. 0039, 0046) to a Wi-Fi network (see par. 0046), the one or more processors are configured to implement steps of: monitoring people and Wi-Fi client devices that connect and operate on the Wi-Fi network (see abstract; par. 0042); and responsive to an event, providing information related to people currently at a home that is associated with the Wi-Fi network to a smart home system (see par. 0066); the information corresponding to of an action and identity of a person and an associated Wi-Fi client device from the Wi-Fi client devices that is associated with the person (see par. 0039, 0067, 0070); and controlling, based on the event and provided information, functionality of the device in the home system (see par. 0071-0072). Anderson does not use the word “smart” for the home. However, a smart home is defined as a home equipped with lighting, heating, and electronic devices that can be controlled remotely by phone, computer, or mobile device and since the child devices 40a-40c are electronic devices controlled remotely to enact the parent control, it can be said that it is part of a smart home or equivalent to a smart home device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention that Anderson’s system qualifies as a smart home since the child devices 40a-40c are controlled remotely to enact the parent control; thereby reading in the limitation.
As to claim 18, Anderson discloses the cloud service of claim 17, wherein the steps further include: prior to the monitoring, associating a person to one or more of the Wi-Fi client devices [S210] (see par. 0064).
As to claim 19, Anderson discloses a Wi-Fi network comprising: one or more access points [10], at least one access point being connected to a cloud service that is configured to: monitor people and Wi-Fi client devices that connect and operate on the Wi-Fi network (see abstract); and responsive to an event, provide information related to people currently at a home associated with the Wi-Fi network (see par. 0066).
As to claim 20, Anderson discloses the Wi-Fi network of claim 19, wherein the information related to people include detection of a specific Wi-Fi client device being on the Wi-Fi network where the specific Wi- Fi client device is previously assigned to a person. [using MAC addresses] (see par. 0060).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCOS L TORRES whose telephone number is (571)272-7926. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alison Slater can be reached at (571)270-0375. 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.
MARCOS L. TORRES
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2647
/MARCOS L TORRES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647