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
2. The action is responsive to the communications filed on 5/21/2026. Claims 1, 3-11,13-20 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 3-6, 8-9, 11, 13-16, 19 are amended. Claims 1, 11 are independent claims. Claims 1, 3-11, 13-20 are rejected.
Summary of claims
3. Claims 1, 3-11, 13-20 are pending,
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-9, 11, 13-16, 19 are amended,
Claims 2, 12 are cancelled,
Claims 1, 11 are independent claims,
Claims 1, 3-11, 13-20 are rejected.
Remarks
4. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed on 5/21/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 3-11, 13-20 under 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive in view of new rejection ground(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
5. Claims 1,3-6, 9, 11, 13-16, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mun-jo Kim et al (US Publication 20160337144 A1, hereinafter Kim), and in view of Patrick Coffman et al (US Publication 20200225841 A1, hereinafter Coffman), and in view of Chris Williams et al (US Publication 20150309516 A1, hereinafter Williams).
As for independent claim 1, Kim discloses: An electronic device comprising: a display; communication circuitry; memory (Kim: Abstract, A home server of a home network system is provided. The home server includes a communication interface configured to communicate with a plurality of devices, included in the home network system, and a server of an internet network); and at least one processor, comprising processing circuitry, operatively connected to the display, the communication circuitry, and the memory, wherein the at least one processor is configured, individually and/or collectively, to: display a user interface including an automation pattern to control at least one external electronic device communicatively connected to the electronic device (Kim: [0061], The internet network 40 is connected to various types of external devices), the automation pattern (Kim: [0015], generate the use pattern information based on at least one from among a rule preregistered in the electronic apparatus, a pattern of a user in using the plurality of devices) comprising both at least one conditional clause including an operating condition of the automation pattern and at least one resultant clause including an operating result (Kim: [0074], The conditional sentence refers to a sentence including a conditional clause and a result clause. The conditional sentence may be divided into an “if-clause” indicating a condition and a “then-clause” indicating a result. In an exemplary embodiment, the conditional sentence may be represented by “If This, Then That” (IFTTT). Accordingly, the conditional sentence may be called as the IFTTT sentence. The “if-clause” of the conditional sentence corresponds to a condition of a rule, and the result clause of the conditional sentence corresponds to an action of the rule); receive operation information on an actual operating state of the at least one external electronic device from the at least one external electronic device (Kim: [0028], a sensor configured to monitor a status of the home network), and detect that the actual operating state of the at least one external electronic device is different from a set operating state of the at least one external electronic device included in the automation pattern, based on the received operation information, while the automation pattern is being executed (Kim: [0081], The context indicates a situation of a home network or information of an incident or a situation and corresponds to a status of a device or a change in the status of the device); … and display a user interface including the changed automation pattern comprising the corrected at least one conditional clause (Kim: Fig. 5, display the automation pattern comprising one conditional clause “if”, and one result clause “then”);
Kim disclose detecting a change of the operating status of the device but does not clearly disclose changing the automation pattern based on a change on the operating state of the device, in an analogous art of controlling the connected home devices, Coffman discloses: based on a difference between the set operating state of the at least one external electronic device and the actual operating state of the at least one external electronic device, [change] the automation pattern by correcting the conditional clause included in the automation pattern (Coffman: [0379], the automation criteria are based on a state of an external device or a condition or event detected by a sensor, examples of criteria based on a state of an external device include the external device being triggered or changing state (e.g., an alarm, motion sensitive light, rain sensor, etc.), examples of criteria based on a condition or event detected include receiving a notification, the presence or absence of a user at a location, the absence of an expected event, machine learning; please note the automation rule is generated based on the changed operating state detected in real time; [0381], display the current state and suggest state; please note the suggest state is the generated automation pattern based on the changed operating state);
Kim and Coffman are analogous arts because they are in the same field of endeavor, home automation system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Kim using the teachings of Coffman to include providing suggestion based on the detected operation state changes. It would provide Kim’s device with enhanced capabilities of adjusting the home network based on the detected usage changes.
Further, Coffman discloses recommending rule to user based on user pattern information but does not clearly disclose change the automation pattern based on a difference between two operations, in an analogous art of home automation system, Williams discloses: based on a difference between the set operating state of the at least one external electronic device and the actual operating state of the at least one external electronic device, change the automation pattern by correcting the conditional clause included in the automation pattern (Williams: [0084], generating a rule indicating to adjust the temperature to 75 any time that the user activates television, when the controller detects a condition, e.g., the television operation state is changing from off to on, the controller adjusts the temperature to be 75)
Kim and Coffman and Williams are analogous arts because they are in the same field of endeavor, home automation system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Kim using the teachings of Williams to include generating new rule based on user operation changes. It would provide Coffman’s device with enhanced capabilities of adjusting the home network based on the detected usage changes.
claims 2, 12 cancelled
As for claim 3, Kim-Coffman-Williams discloses: to change the conditional clause included in the automation pattern when a frequency at which the at least one external electronic device operates the actual operating state different from the set operating state is equal to or greater than the predetermined value
(Williams: [0088], the domain management resource 140 can be configured to detect that a user in subscriber domain 150-1 adjusts a respective thermostat everyday at 7 pm to 70 degrees. After detecting a certain repetitive frequency of this control setting, the domain management resource 140 can be configured to generate a proposed control rule. Upon presenting the proposed rule to a user, the domain management resource can provide a notification to the user in subscriber domain 150-1 such as “You have adjusted your thermostat every day for the past 7 days to 70 degrees at 7 pm. Click this box if you would like to enable a rule that will automatically make this adjustment for you in the future.”).
As for claim 4, Kim-Coffman-Williams discloses: generate usage history information of the at least one external electronic device, based on the operation information received from the at least one external electronic device; and generate the automation pattern, based on the usage history information (Kim: [0087], the controller 120 may generate use pattern information from accumulated history information; [0100], history information about a monitored device; Coffman: [0353], the predetermined accessories are determined based on actions previously performed by device 600 (or a user profile associated with device 600) with respect to the predetermined accessories. In some embodiments, an accessory is suggested based on, e.g., frequency of use or correlation between an event or time and use of an accessory (e.g., a bedroom light is determined for the “Good Morning” scene profile if device 600 typically operates the light in the bedroom in the morning or the dishwasher may be predetermined for the “Good Night” scene profile if it is commonly operated after 11 pm)).
As for claim 5, Kim-Coffman-Williams discloses: determine whether a frequency at which the external electronic device operates in a specific operating state satisfies a designated condition, based on the usage history information (Kim: [0087], the controller 120 may generate use pattern information from accumulated history information; [0100], history information about a monitored device); based on the frequency satisfying the designated condition, identify whether there is a trigger that precedes the specific operating state; generate an automation pattern comprising the at least one conditional clause and the at least one resultant clause based on there being the trigger; and generate an automation pattern comprising only the at least one resultant clause based on there being no trigger (Williams: [0088], the domain management resource 140 can be configured to detect that a user in subscriber domain 150-1 adjusts a respective thermostat everyday at 7 pm to 70 degrees. After detecting a certain repetitive frequency of this control setting, the domain management resource 140 can be configured to generate a proposed control rule. Upon presenting the proposed rule to a user, the domain management resource can provide a notification to the user in subscriber domain 150-1 such as “You have adjusted your thermostat every day for the past 7 days to 70 degrees at 7 pm. Click this box if you would like to enable a rule that will automatically make this adjustment for you in the future.”).
As for claim 6, Coffman-Williams discloses: receive the operation information from the external electronic device based on the automation pattern being executed; and based on there being a difference between the operation information and the automation pattern, change the automation pattern, based on the difference (Williams: [0088], the domain management resource 140 can be configured to detect that a user in subscriber domain 150-1 adjusts a respective thermostat everyday at 7 pm to 70 degrees. After detecting a certain repetitive frequency of this control setting, the domain management resource 140 can be configured to generate a proposed control rule. Upon presenting the proposed rule to a user, the domain management resource can provide a notification to the user in subscriber domain 150-1 such as “You have adjusted your thermostat every day for the past 7 days to 70 degrees at 7 pm. Click this box if you would like to enable a rule that will automatically make this adjustment for you in the future.”).
As for claim 9, Kim-Coffman-Williams discloses: output at least one graphic object comprising an indicator indicating the operating state of the at least one external electronic device to the display; and change the at least one graphic object and output the changed graphic object to the display, based on a difference between the operating state of the at least one external electronic device and the actual operating state of the at least one external electronic device included in the received operation information (Coffman: Figs. 9C-9F, Fig. 12C, [0279], 620-2 displays the current state of the device; [0275], current states of accessories; [0286], display the current state; [0381], display the current state and suggest state; please note the suggest state is determined based on the changed operating state).
As per claims 11, 13-16, it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by claims 1,3-6, thus the rationales for rejecting claims 1,3-6 are incorporated herein.
As per claim 19, it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by claim 9, thus the rationales for rejecting claim 9 are incorporated herein.
6. Claims 7-8, 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim and Coffman and Williams as applied on claims 1 and 11, and further in view of Anush Nadathur et al (US Publication 20210184881 A1, hereinafter Nadathur).
As for claim 7, Kim-Coffman-Williams does not clearly disclose a test function, in another analogous art of home automation control device, Nadathur discloses: wherein the processor is configured to provide a test function of the generated automation pattern (Nadathur: [0076], When a triggering event is detected, the controller or coordinator that detects the triggering event can test one or more triggering conditions associated with the trigger to which the triggering event pertains. In some embodiments, a controller that detects a triggering event can report the event to the coordinator, and the coordinator can test the triggering condition(s). Column 304 lists examples of categories of testable triggering conditions).
Kim and Coffman and Williams and Nadathur are analogous arts because they are in the same field of endeavor, home automation control device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Kim using the teachings of Nadathur to include a test function. It would provide Coffman’s device with enhanced capabilities of performing home automation control with more reliability.
As for claim 8, Kim-Coffman-Williams-Nadathur discloses: determine at least one of the conditional clauses included in the automation pattern as a testable conditional clause to provide a test function (Nadathur: [0076], When a triggering event is detected, the controller or coordinator that detects the triggering event can test one or more triggering conditions associated with the trigger to which the triggering event pertains. In some embodiments, a controller that detects a triggering event can report the event to the coordinator, and the coordinator can test the triggering condition(s). Column 304 lists examples of categories of testable triggering conditions).
As per claims 17-18, it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by claims 7-8, thus the rationales for rejecting claims 7-8 are incorporated herein.
7. Claims 10, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim and Coffman and Williams as applied on claims 1 and 11, and further in view of Archan Rao et al (US Publication 20230120453 A1, hereinafter Rao).
As for claim 10, Coffman discloses drag-drop operation but does not clearly disclose drag and drop to change the operation, in another analogous art of home automation control device, Rao discloses: activate a position movement, based on a drag input to a graphic object corresponding to the external electronic device, of the graphic object within the display, and a conditional clause box and a resultant clause box; and generate the automation pattern in response to the graphic object being dropped in the conditional clause box or the resultant clause box (Rao: [0219], a user may drag the icons for each circuit (e.g., “pool” or “basement”, etc.) to any classification to modify the electric power allotment and scheduling).
Kim and Coffman and Williams and Rao are analogous arts because they are in the same field of endeavor, home automation control device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Kim using the teachings of Rao to include dragging the icons to modify the device operation. It would provide Coffman’s device with enhanced capabilities of allowing user to manage the control rules easily.
As per claim 20, it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by claim 10, thus the rationales for rejecting claim 10 are incorporated herein.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hua Lu whose telephone number is 571-270-1410 and fax number is 571-270-2410. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00 am to 6:00 pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Baderman can be reached on 571-272-3644. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 703-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Hua Lu/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights