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, 11-15, and 17-22 are pending. Claims 2, 10, and 16 are canceled 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/26/2026 has been entered.
Applicant’s Reply Not Fully Responsive
The reply filed on 06/26/2026 is not fully responsive to the prior Office action because of the following omission(s) or matter(s): Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b)- (c) because they amount to a general allegation that the dependent claims are 35 U.S.C. 101 eligible without specifically pointing out how the language of the dependent claims makes the dependent claims eligible in view of the rejections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such rejections. Applicant's Remarks are only directed to the independent claims and fail to address any of the abstract idea rejections to the dependent claims. Even if an independent claim is deemed eligible then it does not necessarily mean that all of the dependent claims are also eligible. See 37 CFR 1.111. The response appears to be bona fide, but through an apparent oversight or inadvertence, consideration of some matter or compliance with some requirement has been omitted. Applicant is required to supply the omission or correction to thereby provide a full response to the instant Office action.
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.
Claims 1, 3-9, 11-15, and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
As per claim 1, in ll. 19-21, it is not clear how “executing” an alternative task for the ongoing task at the IoT device is accomplished by “generating” a new list of tasks. For the purposes of examination, it is interpreted that the alternative task is first a member of the new list of tasks and then the alternative task executed. Appropriate correction is required.
As per claim 9, it has similar limitations as claim 1 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.
As per claim 21, it has similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
The remaining dependent claims not specifically mentioned above are also rejected by virtue of being dependent upon the above rejected independent claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.-Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
As per claim 17, it depends upon claim 13 and yet merely duplicates the language of claim 13. Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims to place the claims in proper dependent form, rewrite the claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims complies with the statutory requirements. 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, 3-9, 11-15, and 17-22 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, the method 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:
obtaining, by an IoT controller device, at least one disruption parameter based on an occurrence of a disruption while executing an ongoing task at an IoT device in the IoT network (abstract idea mental process);
identifying, by the IoT controller device, whether a contextual relationship between the ongoing task and the disruption is present based on at the obtained at least one disruption parameter, at least one parameter associated with the ongoing task, and a context of the IoT device (abstract idea mental process).
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:
continuing the ongoing task at the IoT device (generic computing components) based on identifying that the contextual relationship is not present (generic computing components performing extra-solution activity of merely reciting 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 the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea); and
modifying the ongoing task, based on identifying that the contextual relationship is present, wherein modifying the ongoing task comprises at least one of:
executing an alternative task for the ongoing task at the IoT device by generating a new list of tasks for the IoT device based on a goal of the ongoing task, an estimated remaining time to achieve the goal, and the context of the IoT device, wherein the goal is identified based on a context of the ongoing task (generic computing components performing extra-solution activity of generating data/information), and
proceeding with a next task of the ongoing task at the IoT device based on identifying that the ongoing task is completed (generic computing components performing extra-solution activity of merely reciting 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 the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea).
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:
continuing the ongoing task at the IoT device based on identifying that the contextual relationship is not present (extra-solution activity of merely reciting 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 the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea); and
modifying the ongoing task, based on identifying that the contextual relationship is present, wherein modifying the ongoing task comprises at least one of:
executing an alternative task for the ongoing task at the IoT device by generating a new list of tasks for the IoT device based on a goal of the ongoing task, an estimated remaining time to achieve the goal, and the context of the IoT device, wherein the goal is identified based on a context of the ongoing task (extra-solution activity of generating data/information), and
proceeding with a next task of the ongoing task at the IoT device based on identifying that the ongoing task is completed (extra-solution activity of merely reciting 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 the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea).
Claim 3. The method of claim 1, wherein the obtained at least one disruption parameter 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 ongoing task comprises:
at least one of a previous task of the ongoing task,
the next tasks of the ongoing task,
a status of the ongoing task,
a duration of the ongoing task,
a consistency of the ongoing task, or
a sequence of the ongoing task (abstract idea mental process).
Claim 5. The method of claim 1, 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 a next task of the task at the IoT device based on identifying that the ongoing task is completed, comprises:
identifying, by an IoT controller device, that the ongoing task is completed based on the contextual relationship between the ongoing 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 ongoing task, based on identifying that ongoing task is completed (abstract idea mental process), and
modifying the ongoing task based on the context of the IoT device, the at least one disruption parameter and the at least one parameter associated with the ongoing task, based on identifying that the ongoing task is not completed.
Claim 7. The method of claim 1, wherein the executing of the alternative task for the ongoing task at the IoT device comprises:
estimating the remaining time to achieve the goal of the ongoing task based on the at least one disruption parameter and the at least one parameter associated with the ongoing task (abstract idea mental process).
Claim 8. The method of claim 7, wherein the generating of the new list of tasks for the IoT device based on the goal of the ongoing task, estimated remaining time to achieve the goal, the goal of the ongoing task and the context of the IoT device, comprises:
performing, by the IoT device, one of:
adjusting a duration for an execution of the ongoing task based on the estimated remaining time to achieve the goal (abstract idea mental process), and
adjusting at least one device setting configured for an execution of the ongoing task based on the estimated remaining time to achieve the goal of the ongoing 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.
As per claim 17, it has similar limitations as claim 7 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 18, it has similar limitations as claim 7 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 19, it has similar limitations as claim 4 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 20, it has similar limitations as claim 5 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 21, it has similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 22, it has similar limitations as claim 8 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, 4-6, 9, 12, 15, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ree (US 2021/0037050) in view of Dumitras (US 2019/0385113).
As per claim 1, Ree primarily teaches the invention as claimed including a method for context-based task management in an Internet of Thing (IoT) network ([0029] IoT devices coupled to a wide area network), the method comprising:
obtaining, by an IoT controller device, at least one disruption parameter based on an occurrence of a disruption while executing an ongoing task at an IoT device in the IoT network ([0045] when the abnormal parameter value is detected, the processor may send a disable signal to one or more of the control switches to disable one or more components of the IoT device; [0098] an ongoing network connection may time out, and in order to maintain the ongoing network connection, communicate with the IoT device based on whether the IoT device is in an active or inactive state; [0106] detect an abnormal parameter value i.e., a connection link failure; [0114] an infected IoT device; fig. 4, blocks 204 and 210 use pre-programmed parameter thresholds for operating an IoT device to determine an abnormal parameter value);
identifying, by the IoT controller device, whether a contextual relationship between the ongoing task and the disruption is present based on at the obtained at least one disruption parameter ([0106] determining whether there has been a recent communication link failure), at least one parameter associated with the ongoing task ([0083] whether a read or write operation has been performed on the memory, and whether that particular operation was expected to occur. If the detection circuit determines that the particular operation was incorrectly executed or was not executed at an appropriate time, the IoT device or the detection circuit may determine that the IoT device is compromised or infected and [0104] determines whether any system parameter value during operation has exceeded its threshold value, e.g., is inconsistent with its model. As noted above, determining whether an operation parameter value has exceeded its threshold can include a number of factors, such as the actual parameter value, threshold for that parameter, time, time/day, active/inactive status, and the like), and a context of the IoT device ([0068] determine whether the sudden increase in power utilization is within normal operations, or whether the sudden increase in power utilization is not within normal operation and is likely the result of an attack; [0078] determine whether the on-time of the transceiver exceeds an on-time threshold, and thus, that the IoT device is determined to have been compromised; and [0081] determine whether the key negotiation duration is within the acceptable duration. If the key negotiation duration is not within the acceptable duration, the IoT device or the detection circuit may determine that the IoT device is compromised or infected); and
continuing the ongoing task at the IoT device based on identifying that the contextual relationship is not present ([0105] if the IoT device is not operating with any abnormal parameter values, then normal operation of the IoT device continues).
modifying the ongoing task, based on identifying that the contextual relationship is present ([0071] the user may be provided a patch or firmware update, e.g., an update to the application software or an update to the operating system, wherein the patch or firmware update corrects the takeover of operation of the IoT device, thus overcoming the attack and [0110]-[0111] each IoT device can self-monitor operations to quickly detect any abnormal operation indicative of an attack and take immediate measures to prevent and/or mitigate the takeover of the IoT device).
Ree does not explicitly teach:
wherein modifying the ongoing task comprises at least one of:
executing an alternative task for the ongoing task at the IoT device by generating a new list of tasks for the IoT device based on a goal of the ongoing task, an estimated remaining time to achieve the goal, and the context of the IoT device, wherein the goal is identified based on a context of the ongoing task, and
proceeding with a next task of the ongoing task at the IoT device based on identifying that the ongoing task is completed.
However, Dumitras teaches:
wherein modifying the ongoing task comprises at least one of:
executing an alternative task for the ongoing task at the IoT device by generating a new list of tasks for the IoT device based on a goal of the ongoing task, an estimated remaining time to achieve the goal, and the context of the IoT device, wherein the goal is identified based on a context of the ongoing task, and
proceeding with a next task of the ongoing task at the IoT device based on identifying that the ongoing task is completed ([0044] IoT devices may use the mesh network to communicate with the computing environment and [0088] after the completion of a task, an alert may be sent to the client associated with the user account to notify them to proceed to the next task).
Dumitras and Ree are both concerned with IoT 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 Ree in view of Dumitras because it would provide a way for IoT devices to communicate via the closest sensor, or the sensor that has the highest signal strength, thus eliminating the need for a secondary network to provide communication. The meshing capability can facilitate any number of devices, such as sensors, to communicate with each other without the requirement of a secondary network.
As per claim 4, Dumitras teaches wherein the at least one parameter associated with the ongoing task comprises:
at least one of a previous task of the ongoing task ([0046] previous maintenance events and [0084] previously completed task),
the next tasks of the ongoing task ([0046] next scheduled maintenance event and [0088] next task),
a status of the ongoing task ([0024] and [0028] status of tasks),
a duration of the ongoing task ([0014] duration of time spent on a task),
a consistency of the ongoing task, or
a sequence of the ongoing task ([0089] streamline workflows).
As per claim 5, Ree 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 ([0068] determine whether the sudden increase in power utilization is within normal operations, or whether the sudden increase in power utilization is not within normal operation and is likely the result of an attack; [0078] determine whether the on-time of the transceiver exceeds an on-time threshold, and thus, that the IoT device is determined to have been compromised; and [0081] determine whether the key negotiation duration is within the acceptable duration. If the key negotiation duration is not within the acceptable duration, the IoT device or the detection circuit may determine that the IoT device is compromised or infected).
As per claim 6, Dumitras teaches wherein the proceeding with a next task of the task at the IoT device based on identifying that the ongoing task is completed, comprises:
identifying, by an IoT controller device, that the ongoing task is completed based on the contextual relationship between the ongoing task and the disruption ([0024] send alerts based on completion or non-completion of assigned tasks; [0044] IoT devices may use the mesh network to communicate with the computing environment and [0088] after the completion of a task, an alert may be sent to the client associated with the user account to notify them to proceed to the next task); 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 ongoing task, based on identifying that ongoing task is completed ([0024] send alerts based on completion or non-completion of assigned tasks; [0029] and [0057] task assignments; [0071] task list assigned to user account associated with client device; [0078] determine a task that is to be assigned; and [0088] user account assigned task list), and
modifying the ongoing task based on the context of the IoT device, the at least one disruption parameter and the at least one parameter associated with the ongoing task, based on identifying that the ongoing task is not completed.
As per claim 9, it has similar limitations as claim 1 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 15, it has similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 19, it has similar limitations as claim 4 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 20, it has similar limitations as claim 5 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 21, it has similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ree in view of Dumitras in view of Degaonkar et al. (US 2020/0334125) (hereinafter Degaonkar as provided in the Notice of References Cited dated 11/20/2025).
As per claim 3, Ree in view of Dumitras does not explicitly teach wherein the obtained at least one disruption parameter comprises:
at least one of a type of the disruption, or
a timestamp of the disruption.
However, Degaonkar teaches wherein the obtained at least one disruption parameter comprises:
at least one of a type of the disruption, or
a timestamp of the disruption ([0315] IoT device data can be further integrated into an analytics engine to provide analysis on usage patterns, performance, component degradation with time, and/or environmental effects. Portions of the log files can be broken down into tokens such as type of error, component that generated the error, time etc.).
Degaonkar and Ree are both concerned with IoT 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 Ree in view of Dumitras in view of Degaonkar because it would provide a way to receive IoT device data from an IoT device that recently failed. The system determines which log files and/or sensor data, for example, the IoT device created before and/or after a failure. After gathering this information, the system stores the information, sends it to a storage destination for further analysis and diagnostics to troubleshoot the failure and send a fix or software update to the IoT device.
As per claim 11, it has similar limitations as claim 3 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 7, 13, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ree in view of Dumitras in view of Bui et al. (US 2018/0239959) (hereinafter Bui).
As per claim 7, Ree in view of Dumitras does not explicitly teach wherein the executing of the alternative task for the ongoing task at the IoT device comprises:
estimating the remaining time to achieve the goal of the ongoing task based on the at least one disruption parameter and the at least one parameter associated with the ongoing task.
However, Bui teaches wherein the executing of the alternative task for the ongoing task at the IoT device comprises:
estimating the remaining time to achieve the goal of the ongoing task based on the at least one disruption parameter and the at least one parameter associated with the ongoing task ([0126] monitor progression of completion of tasks, and determine a present state associated with the progression. A state describes one or more of one or more tasks that are to be completed by different users or user roles, an elapsed time since the goal was initiated, an estimated time remaining e.g., progression of multitudes of goals until completion, and determine estimates of remaining times along with other information, and other information indicative of a progress associated with completion of the goal).
Bui and Ree are both concerned with task execution 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 Ree in view of Dumitras in view of Bui because it would provide a way to determine an optimal path that will move progress towards a task goal, for instance a path with the least action (.g., least complexity, least number of tasks, a path determined to result in a least amount of time based on the system monitoring historical completions of similar goals, and so on. The optimal path can be based on progress information associated with the goal, optionally in combination with historical information.
As per claim 13, it has similar limitations as claim 7 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 17, it has similar limitations as claim 7 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 18, it has similar limitations as claim 7 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 8, 14, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ree in view of Dumitras in view of Bui in view of Nanda et al. (US 8,671,299) (hereinafter Nanda).
As per claim 8, Ree in view of Dumitras in view of Bui do not explicitly teach wherein the generating of the new list of tasks for the IoT device based on the goal of the ongoing task, estimated remaining time to achieve the goal, the goal of the ongoing task and the context of the IoT device, comprises:
performing, by the IoT device, one of:
adjusting a duration for an execution of the ongoing task based on the estimated remaining time to achieve the goal, and
adjusting at least one device setting configured for an execution of the ongoing task based on the estimated remaining time to achieve the goal of the ongoing task.
However, Nanda teaches wherein the generating of the new list of tasks for the IoT device based on the goal of the ongoing task, estimated remaining time to achieve the goal, the goal of the ongoing task and the context of the IoT device, comprises:
performing, by the IoT device, one of:
adjusting a duration for an execution of the ongoing task based on the estimated remaining time to achieve the goal, and
adjusting at least one device setting configured for an execution of the ongoing task based on the estimated remaining time to achieve the goal of the ongoing task (col. 24, ll. 59 to col. 25, ll. 4 estimate an amount of time remaining to complete the task, estimate an amount of system resources required based on the task and the amount of time remaining to complete the task, determine if the estimated amount of system resources based on the amount of time remaining to complete the task exceeds one or more system resource threshold values, and if the estimated amount of system resources exceeds the system resource threshold value(s), cease execution of the task, and place the computing device in the second power mode.).
Nanda and Ree are both concerned with task execution 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 Ree in view of Dumitras in view of Bui in view of Nanda because it would provide a way to actively monitor the system resources levels and compare these system resource levels to thresholds during a period of time in which a transition to a reduced power mode is delayed. If the system resource levels exceed or otherwise cross the threshold levels, a power manager may be configured to cease postponing the transition into the reduced power mode and instead transition the computing device to the reduced power mode regardless of whether or not a non-interactive task is still being executed. The power manager can be updated if the estimation or information regarding the non-interactive task changes. For example, the estimation of time to complete the non-interactive task may be increased or decreased.
As per claim 14, it has similar limitations as claim 8 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 22, it has similar limitations as claim 8 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the Remarks on pg. 14-15, Applicant argues that the human mind cannot perform the recited claims. The examiner respectfully traverses. A human can obtain a disruption parameter based on an occurrence of a disruption while the IoT device is executing an ongoing task. The disruption parameter can be obtained similar to obtaining a result to a mental decision or observation that the IoT is either disrupted or not disrupted. The 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). 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. Unlike the SRI case, the human is not analyzing network packets. Rather, the human is merely observing the state of the IoT device to determine whether or not it is nor is not disrupted. Moreover, the continuing and modifying limitations of the independent claims are not being interpreted as mental processes, but extra-solution activity (see rejection above). Thus, for at least the reasons provided above, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive and the rejections are sustained.
On pg. 15 of the Remarks, Applicant alleges that the claims provide an improvement. The examiner respectfully disagrees. 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 a 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 fails to specifically describe what Applicant believes is the improvement. If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification (see MPEP 2106.05(a)). That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement and the claim itself must reflect the improvement in technology (emphasis added by the examiner). An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. The claim must be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the improvement in technology (emphasis added by the examiner). An important consideration in determining whether a claim is directed to an improvement in technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. It is important to note that in order for a method claim to improve computer functionality, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim must be limited to computer implementation. That is, a claim whose entire scope can be performed mentally, cannot be said to improve computer technology. Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 120 USPQ2d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (a method of translating a logic circuit into a hardware component description of a logic circuit was found to be ineligible because the method did not employ a computer and a skilled artisan could perform all the steps mentally). Similarly, a claimed process covering embodiments that can be performed on a computer, as well as embodiments that can be practiced verbally or with a telephone, cannot improve computer technology. See RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1328, 122 USPQ2d 1377, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (process for encoding/decoding facial data using image codes assigned to particular facial features held ineligible because the process did not require a computer). To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Hence, for at least the rationale provided above, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Mehta et al. (US 2021/0080982) disclose ensuring IoT device functionality in the presence of multiple temperature dependencies.
Ulaganathan et al. (US 2018/0285062) disclose controlling an IoT device using multi-modal gesture commands.
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 July 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights