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 11-22 are pending. Claims 2 and 10 are canceled and claims 19-22 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-9, and 11-22 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 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.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed to the instant specification on 04/14/2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure (i.e., see amendments made in [0069] of the instant specification). 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: see all of the changes made in [0069] of the instant specification. Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Applicant’s Reply Not Fully Responsive
The reply filed on 04/14/2026 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 claims are 35 U.S.C. 101 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. 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(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 16 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. Claim 16 depends upon claim 7 and yet merely duplicates the language of claim 7. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 11-22 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, 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:
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
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 a context of the task (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:
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 in the IoT network;
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 (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),
initiating an alternative task for the task at the IoT device based on the contextual relationship between the task and the disruption (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
proceeding with a next task of the task at the IoT device based on the contextual relationship between the task and the disruption (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),
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 remaining time to achieve the goal, the goal of the task and the context of the IoT device (generic computing components performing extra-solution activity of generating data/information).
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:
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 (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),
initiating an alternative task for the task at the IoT device based on the contextual relationship between the task and the disruption (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
proceeding with a next task of the task at the IoT device based on the contextual relationship between the task and the disruption (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),
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 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 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:
estimating the 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).
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.
As per claim 16, 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 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.
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 7 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.
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 (Applicant’s amendments to [0069] dated 04/14/2026 are improper because they constitute new matter). 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.
Response to Arguments
All of Applicant's arguments have been considered.
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. 11-12, Applicant argues that “identifying, by an IoT controller device, that the task is completed based on the contextual relationship between the task and the disruption” 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. 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). 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. 12 of the Remarks, Applicant alleges that “the features of ‘identifying, by an IoT controller device. that the task is completed based on the contextual relationship between the task and the disruption, identifying a goal of the task based on a context of the task; and generating a new list of tasks for assigning to the IoT device based on a remaining time to achieve the goal, the goal of the task and the context of the IoT device’, have a practical application of context-based task management in an IoT network. 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. Hence, for at least the rationale provided above, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
On pg. 12-13 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. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s amendments to [0069] dated 04/14/2026 are improper because they constitute new matter. 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.
Finally, the examiner would like to remind the Applicant that the examiner had previously attempted to collaborate with the Applicant to reach an agreement (see examiner-initiated interview summary dated 09/03/2025). However, the Applicant declined the examiner’s suggestions/recommendations.
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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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 examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Pierre Vital can be reached on 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 April 24, 2026
Prosecution Insights