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 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37 CFR 1.114, the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed 12/5/2025 has been entered. An action on the RCE follows.
Summary of claims
3. Claims 1, 3-11, 13-20 are pending,
Claims 1, 11 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 12/5/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 3-11, 13-20 under 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant argued on pages 8-15 that the cited references including Coffman and Williams did not teach the features cited in claim 1, such as “…from the at least one external electronic device and detects in real time that an operating state of the at least one external device has changed based on the received operation information…the automation pattern is generated based on a difference between the first operating state and the second operating state.”
With respect to Coffman, Applicant argued Coffman’s current state of an external device is changed only in response to a user input, not changed operation state based on the received information even when there is no user input. Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that Coffman discloses 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 (Coffman [0379]), that is, in Coffman, external device’s operation state is monitored and detected such as sensors, and the changed operation state is received in real time, user manual input may trigger automation rule, and changing state of the external device may trigger automation rule without user manual input.
With respect to Williams, Applicant argued Williams generates a new control rule only when a control pattern for a resource is repeated over a certain cycle, and Williams does not teach sensing the change in real time. Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that Williams teaches 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 (Williams [0084]), that is, in Williams, the television operation state (on or off) is monitored and detected in real time, and the control action can be achieved based on the received television operation state in real time.
Accordingly, Coffman and Williams still read on the features in claim 1.
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 1-6, 9, 11-16, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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, Coffman discloses: An electronic device comprising: a display; communication circuitry; memory (Coffman: Abstract, An electronic device, with a display, a touch-sensitive surface, one or more processors and memory); 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 for generating an automation pattern to control at least one external electronic device (Coffman: [0026], determining that the pattern corresponds to a controllable external device, where the controllable external device is configured to operate in two or more states and is remotely controllable between the two or more states), the user interface including a first operating state of the at least one external electronic device communicatively connected to the electronic device ; while the user interface is displayed, receive operation information on a second operating state of the at least one external electronic device from the at least one external electronic device, and detect in real time that an operation state of the at least one external device has changed based on 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; [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); based on a determination that the second operating state of the at least one external electronic device is different from the first operating state of the external electronic generate the automation pattern based on a difference between the first operating state and the second operating state (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; [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); display the user interface including the generated automation pattern (Coffman: [0381], display the current state and suggest state; please note the suggest state is the generated automation pattern).
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 determination that the second operating state of the at least one external electronic device is different from the first operating state of the external electronic generate the automation pattern based on a difference between the first operating state and the second operating state (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)
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 Coffman 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, Coffman-Williams discloses: to generate an automation pattern 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, or an automation pattern comprising only the at least one resultant clause (Coffman: [0115], the phrase “if it is determined” or “if [a stated condition or event] is detected” is, optionally, construed to mean “upon determining” or “in response to determining” or “upon detecting [the stated condition or event]” or “in response to detecting [the stated condition or event],” depending on the context; [0379], the automation criteria are based at least in part on a state of an accessory or a condition or event detected by an accessory (e.g., by a sensor). Examples of criteria based on a state of an accessory include, but are not limited to, an accessory being controlled (e.g., “An accessory is controlled” 1202-4) and an accessory being triggered or changing state (e.g., an alarm, motion sensitive light, rain sensor, etc.); [0434], User interface screen 1810-1 also includes additional selectable criteria or triggering conditions for the automation profile. User interface objects 1804-1 to 1804-4 represent respective time-based criteria that determine when an automation profile can be enabled: “All day”, “Only if it's daytime”, “Only if it is night”, and a specified window of time (e.g., “From” and “To”). User interface screen 1810-1 also includes options 1806-1 to 1806-7 for selecting on what days, if any, an automation is repeated).
As for claim 4, Coffman-Williams discloses: generate usage history information of each external device, based on the operation information received from the at least one external device; and generate the automation pattern, based on the usage history information (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, Coffman-Williams discloses: determine whether a frequency at which the external device operates in a specific operating state satisfies a designated condition, based on the usage history information; 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 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, Coffman-Williams discloses: output at least one graphic object comprising an indicator indicating the operating state of the at least one external device to the display, based on the first operation information; 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 device included in the first operation information and the operating state of the at least one external device included in the second 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 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, 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).
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 Coffman 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, 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 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).
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 Coffman 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
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