DETAILED ACTION
This is office action on the merits in response to the application filed on 10/22/2025.
Claims 1-45 have been filed by the applicant.
Claims 1-25, 30 and 39 were previously canceled.
Claims 32, 36 and 41 are presently canceled.
Claims 26, 31, 37, 40, 42 and 44 are currently amended.
Claims 26-29, 31, 33-35, 37-38, 40 and 42-45 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 .
Response to Argument
Double Patenting rejection:
Examiner has acknowledged applicant’s request to hold double patenting rejection in abeyance.
Claim interpretation and 112 rejection:
112 rejection have been withdrawn based on amendment.
Rejection under 101:
Applicant argues that the claims does not recite abstract idea. The applicant also asserts that the examiner fails to specify how the claim recites commercial interaction. The examiner respectfully disagrees. As responded in the previous office action and indicated in the 101 rejection, the claims recite receiving data, determining unsafe condition, identifying user and broadcast alert to user, which is following a series of instructions to inform user of unsafe condition.
The applicant further argues that 101 rejection is not proper because the parent applicant is allowed and the double patenting rejection states that the claims are not patentably distinct from the parent. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Although the parent application was allowed, the current claims are broader than the parent. Therefore, the analysis will be only based on the current claims.
The applicant further argues that the AI engine should not be evaluated at a high level of generality. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The AI engine is used to implementing the abstract idea. The claims generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, which is the AI-based system.
Therefore, 101 rejection is maintained and made final.
Rejection under 103:
The applicant argues that Fadell does not teach a payment service. The applicant further asserts that the examiner vitiating the meaning of the claim term by altering the claim language from “crowd-source payment service” to “crowd-source payment”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner mapped Fadell to teach a service for detecting unsafe condition, but Fadell lacks “crowd-source payment” service. Koganti discloses a system capable of detecting condition and perform crowd-source payment due to detected condition. Koganti is introduced to modify the service of Fadell to a crowd-source payment service. The examiner maps Koganti to teach “crowd-source payment” more clearly shows which portion is taught by Koganti. In addition, the citation of Koganti clearly discloses a “crowd-source payment service” as explained in the following paragraph.
The applicant further argues that Koganti does not discloses a “crowd-source payment service”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Koganti discloses a transaction server can handle transaction for acquiring resource [0029 0043]. Koganti also discloses appliances are capable transmitting message to request for purchasing food under pre-set conditions [0001 0055-0056 0077]. Therefore, Koganti clearly discloses a “crowd-source payment service”.
The applicant further argues that the combination of reference does not teach “the alert, broadcast to users in response to the detection of an unsafe household condition, comprises a request for execution of the automated action specified for the corresponding threshold values by a corresponding user.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. Fadell discloses a system for smart appliance to detect unsafe conditions and alert the users. Koganti discloses a system where the appliance can detect user-set conditions (i.e., food item is low) and request for purchase more [0055 0077]. Therefore, it is reasonable to combine references and the combination of Fadell and Koganti clearly teaches the limitation.
The applicant further argues that Fadell [0510] does not teach identify users based on historical data associated with user. The examiner understand [0510] discloses historical data but not closely discloses the limitation. The examiner provided citation further explains how historical data is used to identify user. Fadell discloses in [0510] that historical data is used to detect issue. Fadell further explained how the historical data is tied to the user that the user’s historical room temperature and humidity is used to trigger alarm, when user’s room temperature have large increase when it is not in user’s typical cooking time [0227]. See 103 rejection below.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 26-29, 33 and 36 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11694183. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 26-29, 33 and 36 are anticipated by claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11694183.
Claim 26 is anticipated by claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11694183.
Claim 27 is anticipated by claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11694183.
Claim 28 is anticipated by claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11694183.
Claim 29 is anticipated by claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11694183.
Claim 33 is anticipated by claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11694183.
Claim 36 is anticipated by claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11694183.
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 26-29, 31, 33-35, 37-38, 40 and 42-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case, claims 26-29, 31, 33-35are directed to a system, claims 37-38, 40, 42-43 are directed to a method, and claims 44-45 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
The limitations of independent claim 26, which is representative of independent claims 37 and 44, have been denoted with letters by the Examiner for easy reference. The judicial exceptions recited in claim 26 are identified in bold below:
An artificial intelligent (AI)-based system for an automated crowd-sourced payment service based on detection of an unsafe household condition, comprising:
a data storage containing: a plurality of user identification records associated with a plurality of users registered for the automated crowd-sourced payment service, one or more threshold values associated with each of a plurality of registered users, wherein the one or more threshold values correspond to one or more unsafe household conditions detected by one or more smart home appliances, and an automated action specified for each of the one or more threshold values;
an AI engine coupled to an application programming interface (API) that enables acquisition of real time sensing data from the one or more smart home appliances, wherein the AI engine is configured to:
receive the real time sensing data from the one or more smart home appliances;
determine one or more data values from the real time sensing data, that indicate an unsafe household condition based on a comparison with one or more corresponding threshold values;
identify, from the plurality of user identification records, one or more registered users associated with the one or more corresponding threshold value for which an unsafe household condition is detected; and
broadcast an alert, regarding the detected unsafe household condition, to the one or more registered users, wherein the alert, broadcasted to the one or more registered users in response to the detection of an unsafe household condition, comprises a request for execution of the automated action specified for the corresponding threshold values by a corresponding user and wherein the automated action corresponds to a transaction request for a monetary contribution to alleviate the detected unsafe condition and the AI engine is configured to identify the one or more registered users for transmission of the transaction request based on an evaluation of historical data associated with each of the one or more registered users.
Limitations B and D-G under the broadest reasonable interpretation covers steps or functions of commercial interactions. Other than reciting generic computer hardware in limitation B and D, nothing in the claim element differentiates the limitation from processes of commercial interactions. Therefore, limitations B and D-G recite an abstract idea, as highlighted above, that is consistent with the following instructions aspects of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
Accordingly, claim 26, and by analogy similar claims 37 and 44, recite an abstract idea and the analysis proceed to Step 2A.2.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 26 recites the additional elements in bold below:
An artificial intelligent (AI)-based system for an automated crowd-sourced payment service based on detection of an unsafe household condition, comprising:
a data storage containing: a plurality of user identification records associated with a plurality of users registered for the automated crowd-sourced payment service, one or more threshold values associated with each of a plurality of registered users, wherein the one or more threshold values correspond to one or more unsafe household conditions detected by one or more smart home appliances, and an automated action specified for each of the one or more threshold values;
an AI engine coupled to an application programming interface (API) that enables acquisition of real time sensing data from the one or more smart home appliances, wherein the AI engine is configured to:
receive the real time sensing data from the one or more smart home appliances;
determine one or more data values from the real time sensing data, that indicate an unsafe household condition based on a comparison with one or more corresponding threshold values;
identify, from the plurality of user identification records, one or more registered users associated with the one or more corresponding threshold value for which an unsafe household condition is detected; and
broadcast an alert, regarding the detected unsafe household condition, to the one or more registered users, wherein the alert, broadcasted to the one or more registered users in response to the detection of an unsafe household condition, comprises a request for execution of the automated action specified for the corresponding threshold values by a corresponding user and wherein the automated action corresponds to a transaction request for a monetary contribution to alleviate the detected unsafe condition and the AI engine is configured to identify the one or more registered users for transmission of the transaction request based on an evaluation of historical data associated with each of the one or more registered users.
The additional element(s) in limitation A generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (MPEP § 2106.05(h)), which is AI-based system. The additional elements in B through E merely serving as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). As such, when the additional elements are considered individually and as an ordered combination, the claim as a whole amounts to no more implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, the additional element(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not recite any additional elements indicative of integration into a practical application. Rather, the claim as whole generally links the judicial exception to a technological environment defined by high level recitations of a computer and the Internet. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea and the analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
The additional elements, both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the outcome of the considerations at Step 2B will be the same when the considerations from Step 2A.2 are reevaluated. As discussed under Step 2A.2, the additional element(s) amount to no more than generally link the abstract idea to a technological environment performed by a generic computer. Because those instructions embody the abstract idea, the claim itself is merely a recitation of the abstract idea implementing on a computer. This is not enough to provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claims 26, 37 and 44 are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 27 further recite additional element of a smart thermostat. The additional elements fail to recite a practical application nor significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 28 and 38 further recite additional element of refrigerator sensor. The additional elements fail to recite a practical application nor significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 29 further recite continuously monitoring sensing data which is further reciting the abstract idea. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea to a practical application nor provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 31 and 40 further recite evaluate a budget associated with the user which is further reciting the abstract idea. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea to a practical application nor provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 32 and 41 further recite a transaction request which is further reciting the abstract idea. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea to a practical application nor provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 33 and 42 further recite additional element of user application running on user device. The additional elements fail to recite a practical application nor significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 34-35 and 43 further recite evaluate prioritized parameters which is further reciting the abstract idea. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea to a practical application nor provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 36 further recite identifying one or more registered users which is further reciting the abstract idea. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea to a practical application nor provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 45 further recite additional element of a smart thermostat and a refrigerator sensor. The additional elements fail to recite a practical application nor significantly more than the abstract idea.
In summary, the dependent claims considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 26-29, 33, 37-38, 42 and 44-45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fadell et al. (US 20150109104 A1), and further in view of Koganti et al. (US 20180033003 A1).
With respect to claim 26, 37 and 44:
Fadell teaches:
a data storage. (Such registration can be made at a central server [0070] Fig. 2-3)
a plurality of user identification records associated with a plurality of users registered for the […] service. (In some examples, some or all of the occupants (e.g., individuals who live in the home) can register their mobile device 166 with the smart-home environment 100. Such registration can be made at a central server to authenticate the occupant and/or the mobile device 166 as being associated with the smart-home environment 100, and to give permission to the occupant to use the mobile device 166 to control the network-connected smart devices and the security system of the smart-home environment 100. [0070])
one or more threshold values associated with each of a plurality of registered users. (According to embodiments, the thresholds for triggering these alarms can be varied based on activities occurring in the home. More particularly, technologies including the sensors of the network-enabled smart devices in combination with rules-based inference engines or artificial intelligence provided by the central server and cloud-computer system 164 are used to vary alarm thresholds based on the occupants' activities. [0142-0143])
wherein the one or more threshold values correspond to one or more unsafe household conditions detected by one or more smart home appliances. (For example, if the smart hazard detector 104 located in the kitchen observes increased temperature, humidity, and motion in the kitchen, then an inference can be made that one or more of the occupants are cooking ("cooking inference"). On the other hand, the alarm threshold for smoke detection can be decreased so that the smoke detectors are more sensitive than usual. This is to protect the large number of people in the home from fire. [0142-0143]). Note: the claim recite “unsafe” conditions, however, the claim does not clearly support safeness in the process. The claimed invention is directed to sending alert to user based on a threshold sensor value reached. Furthermore, claim 28 recites a refrigerator sensor monitoring food level which has no relation to “unsafe” condition. Therefore, the examiner found “unsafe” has no patentable weight.
an AI engine coupled to an application programming interface (API) that enables acquisition of real time sensing data from the one or more smart home appliances, wherein the AI engine is configured to. (According to embodiments, the network-connected devices (a.k.a. the low- and high-power nodes) of the smart-home environment 100 are capable of enhancing home security. For example, as discussed, all or some of the network-connected smart devices are equipped with motion sensing, heat sensing, pressure sensing, noise sensing, or other types of sensing capabilities that combine with rules-based inference engines and/or artificial intelligence of the central server or cloud-computing system 164 to detect the presence, movement, and/or identity of people, animals, and objects and trigger various alarms in the event a person, animal, or object is in the wrong place at the wrong time anywhere inside or in the curtilage of the smart-home environment 100. [0068])
receive the real time sensing data from the one or more smart home appliances. (For example, the data collected and logged may include maps of homes, maps of users' in-home movements from room to room as determined by network-connected smart devices equipped with motion and/or identification technology, time spent in each room, intra-home occupancy maps that indicate which rooms are occupied and by whom at different times (including in real time), fire-detection incidents, false alarms, CO data, temperature data, humidity data, etc. [0105])
determine one or more data values from the real time sensing data, that indicate an unsafe household condition based on a comparison with one or more corresponding threshold values. (According to embodiments, the thresholds for triggering these alarms can be varied based on activities occurring in the home. More particularly, technologies including the sensors of the network-enabled smart devices in combination with rules-based inference engines or artificial intelligence provided by the central server and cloud-computer system 164 are used to vary alarm thresholds based on the occupants' activities. [0142-0143])
identify, from the plurality of user identification records, one or more registered users associated with the one or more corresponding threshold value for which an unsafe household condition is detected. (However, it should be appreciated the "neighborhood security networks" can be "opt-in" services and that, in addition to or instead of the central server or cloud-computing architecture 164 selecting which homes to send alerts to, individuals can subscribe to participate in such networks and individuals can specify which homes they want to receive alerts from and the types of alerts to be received. [0070 0166])
broadcast an alert, regarding the detected unsafe household condition, to the one or more registered users. (For example, if the registered occupant is at home when an alarm condition (e.g., fire, distressed person, home invasion) is detected, a message can be sent to the occupant's mobile device 166 requesting confirmation that everything is okay. [0118 0126 0141-0143])
the AI engine is configured to identify the one or more registered users for transmission of the transaction request based on an evaluation of historical data associated with each of the one or more registered users. (According to embodiments, technologies including the sensors of the smart hazard detector 104 in combination with rules-based inference engines or artificial intelligence provided at a central server such as 164 are used to reduce the number of false alarms. These data inputs can be considered on a sliding scale based on time of day and day of week. For example, only slight increases temperature and humidity may invoke the cooking inference at 5 pm on weekdays, when history shows that when the occupants typically cook. However, much larger increases are required to invoke the cooking inference at 10 am on a weekday, when the occupants are typically away at that time. In some embodiments, when the cooking inference is made, the smart hazard detector 104 in the kitchen becomes less sensitive, whereas the hazard detectors 104 in other room remain in normal operation. As another example, platform 200 may be operative to compare detected external and/or internal air quality of different areas of environment 100 with one another at a specific time or historically (e.g., by time of day, day of week, season of year, etc.) for identifying certain areas that may have issues to be addressed [0227 0510])
Fadell does not teach the following limitations. However,
Koganti teaches:
automated crowd-sourced payment. (A “transaction server” may include any computing device capable of receiving a request for a transaction and processing information related to the requested transaction. In some embodiments, the transaction server may be affiliated with an electronic marketplace or a retail entity that maintains an internet presence. A transaction server may support transactions to acquire resources (e.g., goods and/or services). In some embodiments, a user may request a transaction by visiting a website affiliated with the transaction server and selecting one or more items to purchase. The transaction server may be in communication with other devices via a network connection. Transaction server 110 may be any computing device or plurality of computing devices configured to receive a transaction request and initiate a transaction. In some embodiments, the transaction server 110 may be associated with an electronic commerce site or other resource provider. For example, the transaction server 110 may maintain a catalog of items and/or services available for purchase. The transaction server may also be associated with a utility company or other resource provider. [0029 0043])
an automated action specified for each of the one or more threshold values. (It has been contemplated that such smart connected devices could be capable of automatically requesting resources such as software updates, goods or services. In this example, the mobile device 104 may include an application that, when executed, allows the user to communicate preferences and/or transaction conditions via the established communication session. The user may provide an indication of a resource for which a transaction should be conducted (e.g., a good or brand of good), a resource provider with which the transaction should be provided (e.g., a merchant from which a good should be purchased), conditions upon which the resource should be replenished, or any other suitable user-specific settings. To do this, the dog food dispenser may attempt to establish a communication session with a mobile device associated with the user of the dog food dispenser to get permission from that user to order more dog food. [0001 0055-0056 0077])
wherein the alert, broadcasted to the one or more registered users in response to the detection of an unsafe household condition, comprises a request for execution of the automated action specified for the corresponding threshold values by a corresponding user. (the refrigerator may transmit a message (e.g., a text message, short messaging service (SMS) message, or any other suitable communicative message) to the mobile device. In this scenario, the message may be presented to the user of the mobile device and may request permission to purchase more of the food item. [0077])
wherein the automated action corresponds to a transaction request for a monetary contribution to alleviate the detected unsafe condition. (the refrigerator may transmit a message (e.g., a text message, short messaging service (SMS) message, or any other suitable communicative message) to the mobile device. In this scenario, the message may be presented to the user of the mobile device and may request permission to purchase more of the food item. [0055 0077])
Fadell discloses a system monitoring smart device data. Koganti discloses a system monitoring smart device data to order service/product. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system as disclosed by Fadell to alert user for execute actions with the technique as disclosed by Koganti to expanded system capability to automatically request resource as Koganti suggested in [0001].
Claim 37, a method with the same scope as claim 26, is rejected.
Claim 44, a CRM with the same scope as claim 26, is rejected.
With respect to claim 27:
Fadell further teaches wherein the one or more smart home appliances comprises a smart thermostat for real-time monitoring of a household temperature. (Examples of spokesman nodes include smart doorbells 106, smart thermostats 102 [0064])
With respect to claim 28:
Fadell further teaches wherein the one or more smart home appliances comprises a smart refrigerator sensor […]. (Still further, in some embodiments, the smart-home environment 100 of FIG. 1 includes one or more intelligent, multi-sensing, network-connected appliances 113 (herein after referred to as "smart appliances 113"), such as refrigerators. [0057])
Koganti further teaches:
real time monitoring of a food level within a smartfridge associated with the household. (By way of a second illustrative example, a smart refrigerator (an example connected device) may detect that a food item (an example resource) is running low. [0077])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system as disclosed by Fadell to monitoring food level with the technique as disclosed by Koganti to expanded system capability to automatically request resource as Koganti suggested in [0001].
With respect to claim 29:
Fadell further teaches wherein the system is configured to continuously monitor the real-time sensing data, retrieved from the one or more smart home appliances, with respect to the one or more threshold values. (a sensor may continuously detect a high level of a particular particle (e.g., pet dander) and determine that an influencer of the environment may be causing such detection [0314])
With respect to claim 33 and 42:
Fadell further teaches wherein the alert is broadcasted to a user application running on a user device associated with each of the one or more registered users. (Thus, the central server or cloud-computing system 164 sends a "pre-alarm" alert message to the registered occupants' mobile device 166, informing the occupants of the detected pattern that there may be suspicious activity occurring in the home. The message may include an indication of where in the house suspicious activity is occurring. The message may also request that the occupant verify that this is a false alert or that an actual home-invasion-condition exists. [0184])
Claim 42, a method with the same scope as claim 33, is rejected.
With respect to claim 38 and 45:
Fadell further teaches:
wherein the one or more smart home appliances comprises a smart thermostat for real-time monitoring of a household temperature. (Examples of spokesman nodes include smart doorbells 106, smart thermostats 102 [0064])
wherein the one or more smart home appliances comprises a smart refrigerator sensor […]. (Still further, in some embodiments, the smart-home environment 100 of FIG. 1 includes one or more intelligent, multi-sensing, network-connected appliances 113 (herein after referred to as "smart appliances 113"), such as refrigerators. [0057])
Koganti further teaches:
real time monitoring of a food level within a smartfridge associated with the household. (By way of a second illustrative example, a smart refrigerator (an example connected device) may detect that a food item (an example resource) is running low. [0077])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system as disclosed by Fadell to monitoring food level with the technique as disclosed by Koganti to expanded system capability to automatically request resource as Koganti suggested in [0001].
Claim 45, a CRM with the same scope as claim 38, is rejected.
Claim(s) 31 and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fadell and Koganti as applied to claim 26 and 37 above, and further in view of Gonzales et al. (US 20160253702 A1).
With respect to claim 31 and 40:
Fadell in view of Koganti does not teach wherein the AI engine is configured to evaluate a budget associated with the registered user prior to transmission of the request for execution of the automated action. However,
Gonzales teaches:
wherein the AI engine is configured to evaluate a budget associated with the registered user prior to transmission of the request for execution of the automated action. (The results could also include an instruction to cause the point of sale device to request an additional confirmation from the user before completing the transaction when the purchase would cause the budget to be exceeded (or reach a pre-specified percentage of total budget threshold). In an embodiment, the results could also include instructions to have the point of sale device display the remaining budget, percentage remaining, budget impact, etc. to the user. [0129])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system as disclosed by Fadell in view of Koganti to check budget before transaction with the technique as disclosed by Gonzales to alert user as suggested by Gonzales in [0027].
Claim 40, a method with the same scope as claim 40, is rejected.
Claim(s) 34-35 and 43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fadell in view of Koganti as applied to claim 26 and 37 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 20120197455 A1).
With respect to claim 34:
Fadell in view of Koganti does not teach wherein the AI engine is configured to evaluate one or more prioritized parameters to determine a level of interest of a registered user for each of the one or more threshold values associated with an unsafe household conditions. However,
Lee teaches wherein the AI engine is configured to evaluate one or more prioritized parameters to determine a level of interest of a registered user for each of the one or more threshold values associated with an unsafe household conditions. (The user preference information may include information about any one of a level where each of smart appliance should always be powered on, a level where the smart appliance should operate at a higher priority than other smart appliances, and a level where the smart appliance may stop an operation thereof, and may also include information about other levels [0044])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system as disclosed by Fadell in view of Koganti to evaluate condition priority with the technique as disclosed by Lee to prioritize more concerning condition.
With respect to claim 35:
Lee further teaches wherein the one or more prioritized parameters are specified by the registered user. (The user preference information may include information about any one of a level where each of smart appliance should always be powered on, a level where the smart appliance should operate at a higher priority than other smart appliances, and a level where the smart appliance may stop an operation thereof, and may also include information about other levels [0044])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system as disclosed by Fadell in view of Koganti to set priority with the technique as disclosed by Lee to prioritize more concerning condition.
With respect to claim 43:
Lee further teaches wherein the AI engine is configured to evaluate one or more prioritized parameters to determine a level of interest of a registered user for each of the one or more threshold values associated with an unsafe household conditions, wherein the one or more prioritized parameters are specified by the registered user. (The user preference information may include information about any one of a level where each of smart appliance should always be powered on, a level where the smart appliance should operate at a higher priority than other smart appliances, and a level where the smart appliance may stop an operation thereof, and may also include information about other levels [0044])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system as disclosed by Fadell in view of Koganti to evaluate condition priority with the technique as disclosed by Lee to prioritize more concerning condition.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20180202870 A1: A temperature monitoring system includes an outer casing, a plurality of display elements, a plurality of buttons, a visual indicator, and a temperature sensing element. The temperature sensing element may be coupled to the outer casing and configured to sense a temperature inside a food supply unit. The temperature monitoring system continuously monitors the temperature inside of the food supply unit such as a refrigerator or steam table.
US 20160042368 A1: According to various aspects of the subject technology, systems and methods for analyzing consumption data associated with a user to determine a projected consumption cost for the user. The projected consumption cost can indicate an expected monetary cost that the user will be required to pay for resource consumption during a specified time period. If it is determined that the projected consumption cost exceeds a threshold consumption cost indicating that the projected consumption cost of the user will be high, the user can be provided with one or more use reports notifying the user that the user's projected consumption cost will be high for the time period. The use reports can warn the user that a high bill should be expected, thereby reducing bill shock and ensuing call center calls.
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 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 ZESHENG XIAO whose telephone number is (571)272-6627. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00am-4:30pm M-F.
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) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Patrick McAtee can be reached on (571) 272-7575. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/Z.X./Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/PATRICK MCATEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3698