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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 3-9, and 11-18 are pending. Claims 2 and 10 are canceled and claims 16-18 are newly added by Applicant.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular paragraphs and/or columns and lines in the references as applied to Applicant’s claims 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. The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the Applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP § 2163.06.
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 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.
Request for Continued Examination
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/06/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
As per claim 16, it should read “The method of claim 1, further comprising: estimating a remaining time to achieve a goal of the task based on at least one parameter associated with the disruption and the at least one parameter associated with the task”. Appropriate correction is required.
As per claims 17-18, they have similar limitations as claim 16 and are therefore objected to using the same rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8 and 13-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable over the prior art of record if rewritten to overcome the applicable rejections and/or objections set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims because the examiner found neither prior art cited in its entirety, nor based on the prior art, found any motivation to combine any of the said prior art.
The primary reason for allowance for dependent claims 7-8 and 13-14 is generating the new list of tasks for assigning to the IoT device based on the estimated remaining time to achieve the goal, the goal of the task and the context of the IoT device in conjunction with the rest of the limitations set forth in the claim.
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, 3-9, and 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: The claim is a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter:
Claim 1. A method for context-based task management in an Internet of Thing (IoT) network, comprising.
Step 2A Prong One: The claim recites an abstract idea because it includes limitations that can be considered mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind or via pen and paper, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea:
Claim 1. A method for context-based task management in an Internet of Thing (IoT) network, comprising.
detecting, by an IoT controller device, an occurrence of a disruption while executing n task at an IoT device in the IoT network (abstract idea mental process);
identifying, by the IoT controller device, a contextual relationship between the task and the disruption based on at least one parameter associated with the disruption, at least one parameter associated with the task, and a context of the IoT device, wherein the at least one parameter associated with the disruption comprises a duration of the disruption (abstract idea mental process); and
performing, by the IoT controller device, one of:
continuing the task at the IoT device based on the contextual relationship between the task and the disruption,
initiating an alternative task for the task at the IoT device based on the contextual relationship between the task and the disruption, and
proceeding with a next task of the task at the IoT device based on the contextual relationship between the task and the disruption,
wherein the initiating of the alternative task for the task at the IoT device based on the contextual relationship between the task and the disruption, comprises:
generating a new list of tasks for assigning to the IoT device based on a context of the task, the context of the IoT device, and at least one parameter associated with disruption.
Step 2A Prong Two: The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the abstract idea is recited but for generically recited additional computer elements (i.e. data storage, processor, memory, computer readable medium, etc.) which do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea amounting to simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer using generic computing hardware and/or software (e.g. generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The generic computing components are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the recited generic computer components. 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:
Claim 1. A method for context-based task management in an Internet of Thing (IoT) network (generic computing components), comprising.
detecting, by an IoT controller device (generic computing components), an occurrence of a disruption while executing n task at an IoT device (generic computing component) in the IoT network;
identifying, by the IoT controller device, a contextual relationship between the task and the disruption based on at least one parameter associated with the disruption, at least one parameter associated with the task, and a context of the IoT device, wherein the at least one parameter associated with the disruption comprises a duration of the disruption; and
performing, by the IoT controller device, one of:
continuing the task at the IoT device based on the contextual relationship between the task and the disruption,
initiating an alternative task for the task at the IoT device based on the contextual relationship between the task and the disruption, and
proceeding with a next task of the task at the IoT device based on the contextual relationship between the task and the disruption,
wherein the initiating of the alternative task for the task at the IoT device based on the contextual relationship between the task and the disruption, comprises:
generating a new list of tasks for assigning to the IoT device based on a context of the task, the context of the IoT device, and at least one parameter associated with disruption.
Step 2B: The claim includes limitations which can be considered extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) insufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional limitations only perform at least one of collecting, gathering, displaying, generating, modifying, updating, storing, retrieving, sending, and receiving data/information data which are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)II. The claim further includes limitations that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they merely recite the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claim, and its limitations when considered separately and in combination, is directed to patent ineligible subject matter:
Claim 1. A method for context-based task management in an Internet of Thing (IoT) network, comprising.
detecting, by an IoT controller device, an occurrence of a disruption while executing n task at an IoT device in the IoT network;
identifying, by the IoT controller device, a contextual relationship between the task and the disruption based on at least one parameter associated with the disruption, at least one parameter associated with the task, and a context of the IoT device, wherein the at least one parameter associated with the disruption comprises a duration of the disruption; and
performing, by the IoT controller device, one of:
continuing the task at the IoT device based on the contextual relationship between the task and the disruption (merely reciting the words "apply it" or an equivalent with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea),
initiating an alternative task for the task at the IoT device based on the contextual relationship between the task and the disruption (merely reciting the words "apply it" or an equivalent with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea), and
proceeding with a next task of the task at the IoT device based on the contextual relationship between the task and the disruption (merely reciting the words "apply it" or an equivalent with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea),
wherein the initiating of the alternative task for the task at the IoT device based on the contextual relationship between the task and the disruption, comprises:
generating a new list of tasks for assigning to the IoT device based on a context of the task, the context of the IoT device, and at least one parameter associated with disruption (extra-solution activity of generating data/information).
Claim 3. The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one parameter associated with the disruption comprises: at least one of a type of the disruption or a timestamp of the disruption (abstract idea mental process).
Claim 4. The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one parameter associated with the task comprises: at least one of a previous task of the task, the next tasks of the task, a status of the task, a duration of the task, a consistency of the task, and a sequence of the task (abstract idea mental process).
Claim 5. The method of claim 2, wherein the context of the IoT device comprises: at least one of an environmental condition around the IoT device, a proximity of the IoT device to a user of the IoT device, an action performed by the user, or an operation condition of the IoT device (abstract idea mental process).
Claim 6. The method of claim 1, wherein the proceeding with the next task of the task at the IoT device based on the contextual relationship between the task and the disruption, comprises:
identifying, by an IoT controller device, that the task is completed based on the contextual relationship between the task and the disruption (abstract idea mental process); and
performing, by the IoT controller device, one of:
assigning the next task to the IoT device based on at least one parameter associated with the task, based on identifying that task is completed (abstract idea mental process), and
modifying the task based on the context of the IoT device, the at least one parameter associated with the disruption and the at least one parameter associated with the task, based on identifying that the task is not completed (extra-solution activity of modifying/updating data/information).
Claim 7. The method of claim 1, wherein the initiating of the alternative task for the task at the IoT device based on the contextual relationship between the task and the disruption, comprises:
identifying a goal of the task based on the context of the task (abstract idea mental process);
estimating a remaining time to achieve the goal of the task based on at least one parameter associated with the disruption and the at least one parameter associated with the task (abstract idea mental process); and
generating the new list of tasks for assigning to the IoT device based on the estimated remaining time to achieve the goal, the goal of the task and the context of the IoT device (extra-solution activity of generating data/information).
Claim 8. The method of claim 7, wherein the generating of the new list of tasks for assigning to the IoT device based on the remaining time to achieve the goal, the goal of the task and the context of the IoT device, comprises: performing, by the IoT device, one of:
adjusting a duration for an execution of the task based on the remaining time to achieve the goal (extra-solution activity of modifying/updating data/information), and
adjusting at least one device setting configured for an execution of the task based on the remaining time to achieve the goal of the task (extra-solution activity of modifying/updating data/information).
As per claim 9, it has similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 11, it has similar limitations as claim 3 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 12, it has similar limitations as claim 6 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 13, it has similar limitations as claim 7 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 14, it has similar limitations as claim 8 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 15, it has similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claim 16. The method of claim 1, wherein the estimating of the remaining time is based on at least one parameter associated with the disruption and the at least one parameter associated with the task (abstract idea mental process).
As per claim 17, it has similar limitations as claim 16 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 18, it has similar limitations as claim 16 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
As per claim 15, it is directed to a signal directly or indirectly by claiming a medium and the Specification recites evidence where the computer readable medium can be interpreted as a signal or wave (see Specification [0069]). More specifically, [0069] states that the term non-transitory “may” indicate that the storage medium is not embodied in a carrier wave or a propagated signal, which is open-ended language that does not limit non-transitory to only non-transitory embodiments. A transitory signal, while physical and real, does not possess concrete structure that would qualify as a device or part under the definition of a machine, is not a tangible article or commodity under the definition of a manufacture (even though it is man-made and physical in that it exists in the real world and has tangible causes and effects), and is not composed of matter such that it would qualify as a composition of matter (see Nuijten, 500 F.3d at 1356-1357, 84 USPQ2d at 1501-03). As such, a transitory, propagating signal does not fall within any statutory category (see Mentor Graphics Corp. v. EVE-USA, Inc., 851 F.3d 1275, 1294, 112 USPQ2d 1120, 1133 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Nuijten, 500 F.3d at 1356-1357, 84 USPQ2d at 1501-03). The BRI of machine readable media can encompass non-statutory transitory forms of signal transmission, such as a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal per se (see In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). In that event, the claim is directed to a form of energy which does not fall into a category of invention.
As per claim 18, it is dependent upon claim 15 but does not cure the above-identified 35 U.S.C. 101 deficiencies of claim 15 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 9, 11, and 15 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Mansfield et al. (US 2017/0004508) (hereinafter Mansfield as previously cited) in view of
Degaonkar et al. (US 2020/0334125) (hereinafter Degaonkar as previously cited) in view of
Herrod (US 2010/0131792).
As per claim 1, Mansfield primarily teaches the invention as claimed including a method for context-based task management ([0011] one or more appliances contain hardware, software, and firmware that have the ability to monitor their own state and/or efficiency, and have the ability to report their status through a computer network to an online system that may store the history of that appliance's statuses in a database, and may further provide such information to authorized third parties and [0055] when an event occurs in the Smart Appliance, a cloud-based event-reporting platform provided by the device manufacturer/third party is the receiver of the device's status) in an Internet of Thing (IoT) network ([0064] IoT connectivity-based technology where every appliance/device is monitored by an Internet-connected device), comprising:
detecting, by an IoT controller device, an occurrence of a disruption while executing a task at an IoT device in the IoT network ([0010] IoT technology detects an appliance failure and Enterprise Resource Platform manages status and selection of a service provider to address the failure);
identifying, by the IoT controller device, a contextual relationship between the task and the disruption ([0010] a cloud-computing facility utilizing machine-learning technology analyzes the error codes associated with the appliance failure) based on at least one parameter associated with the task ([0010] appliance failure event is triggered), and a context of the IoT device ([0054]-[0055] status of the IoT device); and
performing, by the IoT controller device, one of:
continuing the task at the IoT device based on the contextual relationship between the task and the disruption,
initiating an alternative task for the task at the IoT device based on the contextual relationship between the task and the disruption ([0019] service response platform has a machine learning service engine that hosts the database of best corrective actions and progressively learns a best corrective action for each appliance failure incident, [0064], and fig. 4 fault message is evaluated along with obtained diagnostic information to determine appropriate corrective action and selecting and dispatching an appropriate service provider to address failure/fault), and
proceeding with a next task of the task at the IoT device based on the contextual relationship between the task and the disruption.
Mansfield does not explicitly teach:
identifying, by the IoT controller device, a contextual relationship between the task and the disruption based on at least one parameter associated with the disruption, wherein the at least one parameter associated with the disruption comprises a duration of the disruption;
wherein the initiating of the alternative task for the task at the IoT device based on the contextual relationship between the task and the disruption, comprises:
generating a new list of tasks for assigning to the IoT device based on a context of the task, the context of the IoT device, and at least one parameter associated with disruption.
However, Degaonkar teaches:
identifying, by the IoT controller device, a contextual relationship between the task and the disruption based on at least one parameter associated with the disruption, wherein the at least one parameter associated with the disruption comprises a duration of the disruption ([0314] IoT device information such as state conditions, time stamps, and time right before or during the error of the IoT device; [0316], [0352], and [0367] poll IoT device at a certain frequency to determine if device failed or is experiencing an error and request state data for before and after the error i.e., the error duration).
Degaonkar and Mansfield are both concerned with IoT devices/networks and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mansfield in view of Degaonkar because it would provide a way for an IoT device-related entity to develop an update or fix for an error with an IoT device. The IoT device-related entity can then send the fix or update to the IoT device to address the error. Because the IoT data agent can gather different information from different devices, it provides IoT device-related entities with flexibility when diagnosing or troubleshooting a problem.
Mansfield in view of Degaonkar do not explicitly teach:
wherein the initiating of the alternative task for the task at the IoT device based on the contextual relationship between the task and the disruption, comprises:
generating a new list of tasks for assigning to the IoT device based on a context of the task, the context of the IoT device, and at least one parameter associated with disruption.
However, Herrod teaches:
wherein the initiating of the alternative task for the task at the IoT device based on the contextual relationship between the task and the disruption, comprises:
generating a new list of tasks for assigning to the IoT device based on a context of the task ([0008] generate a task list to execute to resolve problem with device; [0037] create new workflows to address new problems), the context of the IoT device ([0028] generate a workflow to correct the problem based on information associated with the device; [0038] generate workflows based on idle state of device; [0068] generate workflow based on detecting a problem with the device; [0070] generate a workflow to resolve problem of device), and at least one parameter associated with disruption ([0034] generate workflow to resolve issue on device; [0059] generate a workflow to resolve the problem by factoring the reconfiguration of parameters into a task list).
Herrod and Mansfield are both concerned with solutions for remedying issues in computer networks and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mansfield in view of Degaonkar in view of Herrod because it would provide for a workflow report component that can report useful information and status related to the problems resolved by analysis and automatic actions performed by the analysis leading to automatic action. A user can pre-configure the reports for delivery to the appropriate individuals based on a scheduled time and date or based on the occurrence of a pre-configured event. For example, the user can schedule the generation and delivery of a problem resolution report to management personnel each time the action coordinator component receives notification that a mobile device problem is resolved. The workflow report component archives generated reports for later review and analysis to investigate systemic problems and to improve the overall efficiency of the enterprise mobile device architecture. The resulting system can detect an operational problem on a mobile device while automatically resolving the problem with a coordinated execution of repair tasks on the mobile device and on the plurality of servers communicatively connected to the mobile device providing for a complex solution to an operational problem.
As per claim 3, Mansfield further teaches wherein the at least one parameter associated with the disruption comprises: at least one of a type of the disruption ([0054] machine failure code) or a timestamp of the disruption ([0054] current time of failure).
As per claim 4, Mansfield further teaches wherein the at least one parameter associated with the task comprises: at least one of a previous task of the task, the next tasks of the task, a status of the task ([0011] one or more appliances contain software and firmware that have the ability to monitor their own state and/or efficiency, and have the ability to report their status through a computer network to an online system that may store the history of that appliance's statuses in a database, and may further provide such information to authorized third parties), a duration of the task, a consistency of the task, or a sequence of the task.
As per claim 5, Mansfield further teaches wherein the context of the IoT device comprises: at least one of an environmental condition around the IoT device, a proximity of the IoT device to a user of the IoT device, an action performed by the user, or an operation condition of the IoT device ([0055] when an event occurs in the Smart Appliance, a cloud-based event-reporting platform provided by the device manufacturer/third party is the receiver of the device's status).
As per claim 9, it has similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 11, it has similar limitations as claim 3 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 15, it has similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mansfield in view of Degaonkar in view of Herrod in view of Clernon (US 2017/0187807) (as previously cited).
As per claim 6, Mansfield in view of Degaonkar in view of Herrod do not explicitly teach wherein the proceeding with the next task of the task at the IoT device based on the contextual relationship between the task and the disruption, comprises:
identifying, by an IoT controller device, that the task is completed based on the contextual relationship between the task and the disruption; and performing, by the IoT controller device, one of:
assigning the next task to the IoT device based on at least one parameter associated with the task, based on identifying that task is completed, and
modifying the task based on the context of the IoT device, the at least one parameter associated with the disruption and the at least one parameter associated with the task, based on identifying that the task is not completed.
However, Clernon teaches wherein the proceeding with the next task of the task at the IoT device based on the contextual relationship between the task and the disruption, comprises:
identifying, by an IoT controller device, that the task is completed based on the contextual relationship between the task and the disruption ([0090] user may select from various troubleshooting options to identify and correct an issue/problem with IoT system workflow); and
performing, by the IoT controller device, one of:
assigning the next task to the IoT device based on at least one parameter associated with the task, based on identifying that task is completed ([0072] IoT workflow may be governed by a strict sequence of tasks to be completed before user can progress to the next task and IoT workflow manager may initiate a particular task to be performed by an element in response to a communication received from another element that indicates another task has been completed), and
modifying the task based on the context of the IoT device, the at least one parameter associated with the disruption and the at least one parameter associated with the task, based on identifying that the task is not completed.
Clernon and Mansfield are both concerned with IoT devices/networks and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mansfield in view of Degaonkar in view of Herrod in view of Clernon because it would provide a way based on a problem indicated by user, to guide a user through one or multiple troubleshooting workflows in an effort to resolve the problem. By way of example, a troubleshooting task may be selected, based on the an issue designated by the user. For example, an installer may present instructions that guide the user to obtain current configuration settings from sensors and confirm that each of the settings are aligned with the specification for the sensors. The user can then make appropriate adjustments by reconfiguring a parameter pertaining to the sensors. Subsequent to reconfiguring the parameter, the user can restart the calibration process for the sensors, and the user can perform the calibration tasks again and verify whether the test IoT data is accurate.
As per claim 12, it has similar limitations as claim 6 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mansfield in view of Degaonkar in view of Herrod in view of White et al. (US 2022/0015596) (hereinafter White).
As per claim 16, Mansfield in view of Degaonkar in view of Herrod do not explicitly teach wherein the estimating of the remaining time is based on at least one parameter associated with the disruption and the at least one parameter associated with the task.
However, White teaches wherein the estimating of the remaining time is based on at least one parameter associated with the disruption and the at least one parameter associated with the task ([0089] estimate of time for completing the mission, elapsed time for the mission, time remaining for the mission, an estimate of time for completing a task in a mission, elapsed time for a task in the mission, or time remaining for a task in the mission based on environmental status; [0120]-[0121] and [0138]-[0139] error or problem status; [0143] IoT device).
White and Mansfield are both concerned with device management in computing environments and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mansfield in view of Degaonkar in view of Herrod in view of White because it would provide for a mission optimizer that can receive a time allocation for completing a mission, and prioritize one or more tasks in the mission routine based on the time allocation. To execute a user experience-based mission routine or task, the mission monitor can estimate time for completing individual tasks in the mission, such as based on historical mission or task completion time. The optimizer can modify the mission routine by identifying and prioritizing those tasks that can be completed within the allocated time.
As per claim 17, it has similar limitations as claim 16 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 18, it has similar limitations as claim 16 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Response to Arguments
All of Applicant's arguments have been considered. The arguments pertaining to the prior art 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections are moot because the new grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendments do not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant's arguments pertaining to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the Remarks on pg. 8-9, Applicant argues that (i) “identifying, by the IoT controller device, a contextual relationship between the task and the disruption based on at least one parameter associated with the disruption, at least one parameter associated with the task, and a context of the IoT device, wherein the at least one parameter associated with the disruption comprises a duration of the disruption”, (ii) “generating a new list of tasks for assigning to the IoT device based on a context of the task, the context of the IoT device, and at least one parameter associated with the disruption”, and (ii) “identifying a goal of the task based on a context of the task, and estimating a remaining time to achieve the goal of the task” cannot be performed solely in the human mind. The examiner respectfully traverses. Applicant fails to provide any rationale whatsoever to support Applicant’s conclusion. Applicant is reminded of In re Buchner, 929 F.2d 660, 661, 18 USPQ2d 1331, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“expert’s opinion on the ultimate legal conclusion must be supported by something more than a conclusory statement”). It appears that Applicant is merely making an unsubstantiated conclusory statement. Attorney argument is not evidence unless it is an admission, in which case, an examiner may use the admission in making a rejection (see MPEP § 2129 and § 2144.03 for a discussion of admissions as prior art). The arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness."). See MPEP § 716.01(c) for examples of attorney statements which are not evidence and which must be supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration. Applicant’s arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b)-(c) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims are eligible without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims makes the claims eligible in view of the rejections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such rejections. The examiner contends that the aforementioned identifying step can indeed be performed mentally. Regarding (i), a human can identify a contextual relationship between the task and the disruption (e.g., identify that an error in a task being performed by the IoT device is causing the IoT device to be inoperable) based on observing that the IoT device is inoperable for a measured/observable duration, at least one parameter associated with the task (e.g., the task is experiencing an error), and the context of the IoT device (e.g., the IoT device is in an inoperable state). Regarding (ii), it is being interpreted as extra-solution activity of generating data and therefore Applicant’s argument does not apply. Finally, regarding (iii), a human can readily identify a goal for a task (e.g., that the task be completed by a certain time), and guess/estimate how much time remains until the task is finished. Hence, for at least the rationale provided above, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
On pg. 9-10 of the Remarks, Applicant alleges that claim 15 recites closed-ended language for the recited “non-transitory computer-readable storage media”, while the specification recites open-ended language. Applicant has failed to explain how the language of claim 15 avoids the issues related to the non-statutory subject matter rejection of the claimed computer readable storage media. More specifically, claim 15 recites one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media while [0069] of the instant specification states that the “term ‘non-transitory’ may indicate that the storage medium is not embodied in a carrier wave or a propagated signal.” Hence, [0069] supports an interpretation of the claimed non-transitory computer-readable storage media to actually be a transitory embodiment which does not fall into a category of invention. Thus, for at least the reasons provided above, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive and the rejections are sustained.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Pathela (US 2017/0187602) in at least [0023] discloses a software process correlates information from different sources of data along different points and levels of connectivity to automatically detect, isolate, and remediate a failure, fault or problem experienced by a connected device or application. For example, performance data and checks may be performed at a cloud based level of connection, at a wireless router level, and at an Internet of Things (IoT) device level. Various aspects (devices, connections, and performance) of the connected environment are examined in their live and operating condition to identify an issue, narrow down the source of the problem, and prescribe a solution to the issue.
RoyChowdhury et al. (US 2021/0081501) in at least [0041]-[0042] disclose middleware that supports real-time data staging and processing of stream data to detect anomalous signals, alert the user about those anomalous incidents and can automate the change in operational state of IoT devices that produce those signals based on operational strategies or rules. The state-of-the-art suite of unsupervised algorithms enable the system to remove human bias from decision making and scale across highly complex data processing requirements. The smart algorithms of the present invention can drill down into each insight to explore root causes for the anomalous behavior observed in the data by searching for correlations across other events that had occurred around the same time. This root cause analysis further enables the system to recommend corrective actions to the user by simulating various scenarios and finding the optimal solution to rectify the anomalous behavior.
Koo (US 2018/0020057) in at least [0032] disclose an IoT device workflow includes a collection of IoT devices (physical and software), and a collection of flow definitions on how the devices from the list interact with each other or with themselves. A flow definition consists of sequences tasks that are static (e.g., do a task, repeat a task every hour), conditioned (e.g., if the first task is done successfully then do the next task), or a combination of both, connecting together by Boolean logic operations (AND, OR, NOT, etc.). One or a combination of the following tasks can be performed by platform 200 on an IoT device in the collection: collect information from a device, poll a device for its status, set a parameter for a device, and request a device to perform an action. The logics in a flow definition can be pre-programmed, or they can be learned dynamically by machine learning techniques or the like in order to introduce intelligence and responsiveness to the workflows.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adam Lee whose telephone number is (571) 270-3369. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH 8AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the above noted Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Pierre Vital, can be reached at the following telephone number: (571) 272-4215. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
/Adam Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2198 January 26, 2026