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 .
This office action is a response to an amendment filed 10/16/2025.
Claims 1-19 are pending.
Claims 1, 2, and 14 are amended.
Claims 16-19 are added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 10/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of new grounds of rejection. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Rejections based on newly cited references(s) and interpretations of the previously cited prior art follow.
Applicant’s amendment overcame the rejection under 35 USC § 112(b) made in the previous Office action.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 19, the claim recites the limitation “wherein the confirmation that the user has initiated performance of the predicted at least one response user action is determined based on based on an image from a camera in the vicinity of the one or more IoT devices on which the user is performing the current user activity on each of the one or more IoT devices.”
There appears to be a typographical error where the phrase “based on” is invertedly repeated, one after the other.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 17, the claim recites the limitation “wherein the automatically adjusting the one or more operational settings of the one or more IoT devices comprises adjusting the one or more operational settings of the one or more IoT devices operated by a user before the detection of the non-speech sound.” It is not clear how a limitation which in the base claim depends requires an adjustment to be made based on a non-speech sound, can then further include the adjustment prior to the non-speech sound. It is not clear if Applicant intended for the dependent claim to include separate adjustments being made prior to “the adjustments” based on the non-speech sound of the base claim, but as it stands, the instant claim is contradictory. For the purpose of examination, the claim is being broadly interpreted to include any adjustments.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, and 10-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Publication No. 2018/0323996 to Roman et al., (hereinafter Roman), in view of US Patent No. 11,483,174 to Eberhardt et al., (hereinafter Eberhardt).
Regarding claim 1, Roman teaches a method for controlling one or more Internet of Things (JoT) devices in an JoT environment (IoT, see p3-4, Roman), the method comprising:
identifying, by a computing system (A device such a computer system, see P4, 47, 63, 132-133, 123-150, Roman), a current user activity associated with each of the one or more IoT devices (A current activity, such as daily user activities, can be identified and is associated with devices, for example activity patterns such as bedtime sleeping activities associated with toothbrushes, clocks, lights, bolts, phones etc., , see P47, 43, Roman);
detecting, by the computing system, a non-speech sound during the identified current user activity (An audio non-speech sound can be detected, such as a device alarm sound, during a current bedtime sleeping activity, see P63, 47, 27, 34-35, Roman);
predicting, by the computing system, at least one responsive user action based on the detected non-speech sound, wherein the predicted at least one responsive user action impacts the current user activity (A detecting environmental sound, such as alarm sounding, provides a prediction that the user will be waking up and moving around preparing morning actions, which impact a current activity such as resting and waking up prepare for the day, see P63, 43, 27, Roman);
and automatically adjusting, by the computing system, one or more operational settings of the one or more IoT devices to minimize the impact of the predicted at least one responsive user action on the current user activity, based on a confirmation that the user has initiated performance of the predicted at least one responsive user action (Devices are automatically adjusted to minimize the impact of waking and preparing from resting, including adjusting at least one device such as traffic providing device after confirming that a user has initiated waking up and preparing, such as by determined user drinking coffee, see P63-64, 79, 34, 106, Roman).
While Roman implies that activities can include activities performed by a user on one or more or more IoT devices, such as in daily activities involving brushing teeth and morning activities, Eberhardt, from the same or similar field of activities, device functionality, and prediction, more explicitly teaches specific activity examples that include “wherein a current user activity is an activity performed by a user on each of one or more IoT devices” (An activity is comprised of a user performing an activities on devices, such as on kitchen devices, app devices, etc., It is further noted, that the activity is performed within the context of a computing system that identifies a current activity, such as a cooking, eating, and food activity of a user, and associated with devices, such as the kitchen cooking devices, appliances, apps, and connected devices, and where an audio non-speech sound can be detected, such as device sounds in an environment during a current activity, such as a cooking, eating, and food activity in model training phases of the activity, such that the model is a predicting of action activities based on labeled gathered non-speech sounds. For example, a model is a prediction that specific non-speech sounds such as specific kitchen sounds will lead to a food storage actions that impacts a current cooking, eating, and food activity by the quality of how long cooked hot food is cooled, and leads to devices that are automatically adjusted to minimize the impact of an activity after confirming that sounds obtained are consistent with a likely condition being performed by use of modeling. To continue the example, a refrigerator is automatically adjusted to reduce the impact of a storing away cooked food action on a cooking, eating, and food activity, wherein the likely storing of food is confirmed with specific sounds detected in the environment while a user performs the activity, see C4 L2-15; C6 L51-67; C3 L40 to C4 L18; C1 L64 to C7 L28; C4 L43 to C5L5, Eberhardt)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the iot control and user activity system as described by Roman and incorporating an activity performed by a user on one or more devices in a specified activity, as taught by Eberhardt.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better consider specific desired activities that involve specific activities on devices within a desired context, and that can be predicted based on a combination of environmental sounds and interactions to then optimally control device functionality (see C4 L2-15; C3; C6 L51-67; C3 L40 to C4 L18; C1 L64 to C7 L28; C4 L43 to C5L5, Eberhardt ).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Roman and Eberhardt teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Roman further teaches further comprising: determining, by the computing system, a correlation between the current user activity, the non-speech sound, and a plurality of candidate user actions to respond to the non-speech sound (A probable match correlation can be determined between a trigger, current user activity, and probable candidate actions to respond to the trigger. For example, a user in an activity before morning, an alarm sound, and user morning activities, can correlate to probable candidate user actions such as opening curtains, making coffee, reports etc., that can be matched, see P43-44, 56, 77-78, 52-53, Roman); and predicting, by the computing system, the predicted at least one responsive user action from the plurality of probable user actions based on the correlation (User actions of morning preparation are predicted based on match correlations that signal a probable morning routine and trigger, see P77-78, P43-44, 56, 77-78, 52-53, Roman)
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Roman and Eberhardt teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Roman further teaches wherein the correlation determines an impact of each of the plurality of candidate user actions on the current user activity (Each of a plurality of actions that are candidates to match a correlation of a type of scene determines an impact of a user activity. For example, Activities that are match to correlate to a morning routine impacts a user activity of resting to initiate a morning routine, see P77-78, P43-44, 56, 77-78, 52-53, Roman).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Roman and Eberhardt teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Roman further teaches wherein the plurality of candidate user actions comprises one or more candidate user actions to respond to the non-speech sound for each user associated with each of the one or more IoT device (Probable user actions to respond to a trigger associated with a user, for example, actions such as opening curtains, making coffee, and/or providing a report are probable candidate actions to provide for an associated user preparing in the morning based on an alarm sound, see P43-44, 56, 77-78, 52-53, Roman).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Roman and Eberhardt teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Roman further teaches further comprising training, by the computing system, a machine-learning (ML) model to control the one or more IoT devices, wherein the training comprises: monitoring, for a period of time, a plurality of user actions in response to one or more non-speech sounds in a vicinity the one or more IoT devices, while performing one or more user activities associated with the one or more IoT devices (Learning by a machine learning by observing user patterns of triggers and actions of devices that a user performs. For example, the system learns from scene triggers such as alarm sounds or environmental audio and user actions such as opening curtains, using coffee machine, or activating devices in a specified period, so as to learn and provide automated control, see p26, p41-42, P78, 76-78, fig. 8, 96, 106, 112, 63-64, 67, abs., p4, Roman); and determining a correlation between the one or more user activities, the one or more non- speech sounds and the plurality of user actions in response to the one or more non-speech sounds to identify the plurality of candidate user actions which the user performs in response to detection of the one or more non-speech sounds while performing the one or more user activities (A match correlation is determined based on learned user activities that are probable of a specified pattern with a scene trigger. For example, an alarm scene trigger can be associated with probable identified activities of user action such as opening curtains and/or making coffee, see p26, p41-42, P78, 76-78, fig. 8, 96, 106, 112, 63-64, 67, abs., p4, Roman).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Roman and Eberhardt teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Roman further teaches further comprising determining, by the computing system, an actual user action to respond to the non-speech sound for validating an accuracy of the predicted at least one responsive user action, wherein the actual user action is the predicted at least one responsive user action, and wherein the automatic adjustment of the one or more operational settings of the one or more IoT devices is performed based on the validation (An actual user action, such as preparing for the morning, is determined for validating that the accuracy of an alarm sound predicts a user performing a predicted morning preparation routine including drinking coffee, where the validation of is used to adjust a device for providing a report, see P63-64, Roman).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Roman and Eberhardt teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Roman further teaches further comprising: receiving one or more non-speech sounds around at least one IoT device (Non-speech sounds are received, such as an alarm sound, audio of walking, appliance volume of appliances such as tv or radio, etc., from iot devices such as microphones, see P37, P63, 34, Roman); classifying the one or more non-speech sounds into one or more categories (Non-speech sounds are classified as to their relevancy, see P37, P63, 34, Roman); ranking the classified one or more non-speech sounds based on a user urgency (An relevant non-speech audio ranked to be of enough urgency importance to store, while irrelevant audio category is a non-urgent and ranked lower for non-storage, see P37, P63, 34, Roman); and detecting the non-speech sound, of the one or more non-speech sounds, around the IoT device based on the ranking (A non-speech sound, such as an appliance alarm sound is detected based on it having a rank sufficient to merit storage, see p63-64, Roman).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Roman and Eberhardt teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Roman further teaches further comprising predicting, by the computing system, a time duration of the predicted at least one responsive user action based on the non- speech sound, wherein the automatic adjustment of the one or more operational settings of the at least one IoT device comprises adjusting the one or more operational settings of the at least one IoT device for the predicted time duration, based on initiation of the predicted at least one responsive user action (At least one device is adjusted based on prediction duration of a user waking up and preparing, for example a duration of preparing for a period of time until a user device is adjusted to receive traffic report, see p64, p63-64, 78, Roman ).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Roman and Eberhardt teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Roman further teaches wherein the automatically adjusting the one or more operational settings of the one or more IoT devices comprises modifying at least one operational parameter of the one or more IoT devices, and wherein the at least one operational parameter comprises one of temperature, a timestamp, a volume, speed, or an ON/OFF state of the one or more IoT devices (A parameter is automatically adjusted of at least one connected device, such as turning on a state of a coffee machine, volume or operation on of a traffic providing device, speed of an actuator to open curtains or a valve drive to water plants, etc., see P63-64, Roman).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Roman and Eberhardt teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Roman further teaches wherein the computing system is an IoT device (A networked assistant device is an IoT device, see P4, 47, 63, 59, Roman).
Regarding claim 14, Roman teaches a system for controlling at least one Internet of Things (IoT) device in an IoT environment (IoT, see p3-4, Roman), the system comprising: a memory storing one or more instructions (Memory, see 132-133, 136, 132-150, P59, 123-150, Roman); and a processor configured to execute the one or more instructions (Processor, see p136, 132-150, 123-150, Roman) to:
Claim 14 is further rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
Claim 15 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 2.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Roman and Eberhardt teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Eberhardt further teaches wherein a current user activity is identified based on an image from a camera in a vicinity of one or more IoT devices (Camera image data obtained from an environment with user activity, see C3 L2 to 17; C26L17-32; C19, Eberhardt)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the iot control and user activity system as described by the combination that includes Roman and incorporating activities identified based on camera images, as taught by Eberhardt.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better consider sensed data from a device that can be analyzed to determine predefined activities of images in an environment (see C3 L2 to 17; C26L17-32; C19, Eberhardt).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Roman and Eberhardt teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Eberhardt further teaches wherein an automatically adjusting one or more operational settings of one or more IoT devices comprises adjusting one or more operational settings of the one or more IoT devices operated by a user before a detection of the non-speech sound (Fridge, for example, is operated and adjusted continually to cool prior to any adjustment based on detected non-speech sound, see C6 L51 to C7; C4 L2 to C5; C3 L40 to C4 L18; C1 L64 to C7 L28; C4 L43 to C5L5, Eberhardt)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the iot control and user activity system as described by the combination that includes Roman and incorporating adjustments prior to detected non-speech sound, as taught by Eberhardt.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better maintain operation of devices so that the device provides and maintains its primary functions (see C6 L51 to C7; C4 L2 to C5; C3 L40 to C4 L18; C1 L64 to C7 L28; C4 L43 to C5L5, Eberhardt).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Roman and Eberhardt teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Eberhardt further teaches wherein a non-speech sound is detected while a user is performing a current user activity on each of one or more IoT devices (Audio during a cooking, eating, and food activity, with user performing activity on devices such as appliance devices, kitchen devices, and cooking app devices, see C4 L2-15; C6 L51-67; C3 L40 to C4 L18; C1 L64 to C7 L28; C4 L43 to C5L5, Eberhardt)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the iot control and user activity system as described by the combination that includes Roman and incorporating detection of non-speech sounds while a user is performing activities on devices, as taught by Eberhardt.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better capture pattern noises that have been determined to be related to specified activities related to devices used during the activity of interest(see C6 L51 to C7; C4 L2 to C5; C3 L40 to C4 L18; C1 L64 to C7 L28; C4 L43 to C5L5, Eberhardt).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Roman and Eberhardt teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Roman further teaches wherein a confirmation that a user has initiated performance of a predicted at least one response user action is determined (A prediction that a user will perform morning action is confirmed, for example with determination of the user has drunk or is drinking coffee, see P63-64, 79, 34, 106, Roman)
Eberhardt further teaches a determination based on based on an image from a camera in a vicinity of one or more IoT devices on which a user is performing a current user activity on each of the one or more IoT devices (Camera image data obtained and analyzed for user activity in an environment that can include devices, see C3 L2 to 17; C26L17-32; C19, Eberhardt)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the iot control and user activity system as described by the combination that includes Roman and incorporating activities determined based on camera images, as taught by Eberhardt.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better consider sensed data from a device that can be analyzed to determine predefined activities of images in an environment (see C3 L2 to 17; C26L17-32; C19, Eberhardt).
Claims 6, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roman, in view of Eberhardt, and in further view of US Patent Publication No. 2019/0368103 to Choung (hereinafter Choung).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Roman and Eberhardt teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Roman further teaches wherein a prediction of an at least one responsive user action based on a detected non-speech sound (A detecting environmental sound, such as alarm sounding, provides a prediction that the user will be waking up and moving around preparing morning actions, which impact a current activity such as resting and waking up prepare for the day, based on learned patterns, see P63, 43, 27, p26, p41-42, P78, 76-78, fig. 8, 96, 106, 112, 63-64, 67, abs., p4, Roman) comprises: ranking a plurality of candidate user actions (Possible user actions can be weighted score, meaning ranked, in determining actions impacting a user by their control, see p53-p54, P89 , Roman); and identifying a most probable user action, among a plurality of candidate user actions, as a predicted at least one responsive user action based on a ranking (Possible candidate action can be identified based on score, where the action can be identified for a scene such as morning scene used in prediction that a user is waking and morning routine, see Pg. 53-54, 63-64, 89, Roman ).
Roman does not explicitly teach wherein a prediction comprises: ranking a plurality of candidate parameters using an ML model;
However, Choung from the same or similar field of home monitoring and control, teaches wherein a prediction comprises: ranking a plurality of parameters using an ML model (Machine learning function model prediction trained with weights, see 75-76, P62, 70, Choung).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the iot control and user activity system as described by Roman and incorporating ranking of candidate parameters of interest using machine learning model, as taught by Chuong.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better decern a parameter among parameters by considering preferred biases via training of a function model (see 75-76, P62, 70, Choung).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Roman and Eberhardt teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Roman further teaches wherein an actual user action is determined based on a current state of the at least one IoT device (An actual user action, such as preparing for the morning, is determined based on a device state such as an alarm sound state being on, see P63-64, Roman).
Roman further implies an actual user action is determined based on another non-speech sound in an acoustic environment around the at least one IoT device (An actual user action, such as preparing for the morning, is determined based on a device state such as an alarm sound state being on, a coffe maker activation of a morning action can be triggered on specified triggers that can include consideration of user location, where location can determined by audio, see P78-79, P63-64, p120, Roman).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the iot control and user activity system as described by Roman and incorporating another non-speech, as taught by Roman.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better determine a secondary trigger to for an action that indicates a probable upcoming situation to better control and time a desired or relevant information and outcome, such as having a food or service ready (see P78-79, P63-64, p120, 37, Roman).
Choung from the same or similar field of home monitoring and control, also teaches an actual user action is determined based on another non-speech sound in an acoustic environment around the at least one IoT device (Identification of a user location action determined by one or more (another) level of sound around appliance, see P59, 120, Chuong)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the iot control and user activity system as described by the combination including Roman and incorporating another non-speech, as taught by Chuong.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better determine an upcoming situation to better control and time a desired or relevant information and outcome, (see P78-79, P63-64, p120, 37, Roman; see P59, 120, Chuong ).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Roman and Eberhardt teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Roman further teaches wherein a current user activity is identified based on at least one of a current state of at least one IoT device, and a user attention information for each of the at least one IoT device, (An user activity, such as preparing for the morning, is determined based on a device state such as an alarm sound state being on, and a user drinking coffee that is user attention information for at least to one iot device such as a coffee maker, see P63-64, Roman).
Roman further implies a current activity based on another non-speech sound in an acoustic environment around the at least one IoT device (An current activity, such as preparing for the morning, is determined based on a device state such as an alarm sound state being on, and a coffee maker activation of a morning action can be triggered on specified triggers that can include consideration of user location, where location can determined by audio, see P78-79, P63-64, p120, Roman).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the iot control and user activity system as described by Roman and incorporating another non-speech, as taught by Roman.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better determine a secondary trigger to for an action that indicates a probable upcoming situation to better control and time a desired or relevant information and outcome, such as having a food or service ready (see P78-79, P63-64, p120, 37, Roman).
Choung from the same or similar field of home monitoring and control, also teaches an actual user action is determined based on another non-speech sound in an acoustic environment around the at least one IoT device (Identification of a user location action determined by one or more (another) level of sound around appliance, see P59, 120, Chuong)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the iot control and user activity system as described by the combination including Roman and incorporating another non-speech, as taught by Chuong.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better determine an upcoming situation to better control and time a desired or relevant information and outcome, (see P78-79, P63-64, p120, 37, Roman; see P59, 120, Chuong ).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jackson et al., US. Patent No. 11,315,394 teaches that detection of an action, such a doorbell press, prompts a change to another device .
Warren et al., US. Patent Publication No. 2018/0331845 teaches a camera to detect an action such as a visitor ringing a doorbell.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1- are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent No. 11,483,174 to Eberhardt et al., (hereinafter Eberhardt).
Regarding claim 1, Eberhardt teaches a method for controlling one or more Internet of Things (JoT) devices in an JoT environment (IoT, see C1 L5-11; C3 L6-8, Eberhardt), the method comprising:
identifying, by a computing system (A computing system, see C7 L49 to C8 L12, Eberhardt), a current user activity associated with each of the one or more IoT devices (A current activity, such as cooking, eating, and food activity of a user, is identified and is associated with devices, such as cooking devices, appliances, and connected devices, see C6 L51-67; C3 L40 to C4 L18; C1 L64 to C7 L28; C4 L43 to C5L5, Eberhardt);
detecting, by the computing system, a non-speech sound during the identified current user activity (An audio non-speech sound can be detected, such as a device sounds in an environment, during a current activity, such as a cooking activity and in training phases of the activity, see C3 L40 to C4 L18; C6 L51-67; C1 L64 to C7 L28; C4 L43 to C5L5, Eberhardt);
predicting, by the computing system, at least one responsive user action based on the detected non-speech sound, wherein the predicted at least one responsive user action impacts the current user activity (A model provides likely (predicted) action activities based on labeled non-speech sounds, for example, a model is a prediction that specific non-speech sounds such as specific kitchen sounds will lead to a food storage actions that impacts a current cooking, eating, and food activity by the quality of how long cooked hot food is cooled, see C6 L51-67; C3 L40 to C4 L18; C1 L64 to C7 L28; C4 L43 to C5L5, Eberhardt);
and automatically adjusting, by the computing system, one or more operational settings of the one or more IoT devices to minimize the impact of the predicted at least one responsive user action on the current user activity, based on a confirmation that the user has initiated performance of the predicted at least one responsive user action (Devices are automatically adjusted to minimize the impact of an activity after confirming that sounds obtained are consistent with a likely condition being performed by use of modeling. For example, a refrigerator is automatically adjusted to reduce the impact of a storing away cooked food action on a cooking, eating, and food activity, wherein the likely storing of food is confirmed with specific sounds detected in the environment while a user performs the activity, see C6 L51-67; C3 L40 to C4 L18; C1 L64 to C7 L28; C4 L43 to C5L5, Eberhardt), wherein the current user activity is an activity performed by a user on each of the one or more IoT devices (An activity is comprised of a user performing an activity on devices, such as kitchen devices, app devices, etc., see C4 L2-15; C6 L51-67; C3 L40 to C4 L18; C1 L64 to C7 L28; C4 L43 to C5L5, Eberhardt).
Conclusion
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 EMILIO J SAAVEDRA whose telephone number is (571)270-5617. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30am-5:30pm (EST).
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 E 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.
/EMILIO J SAAVEDRA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117