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 1/28/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending in the case. Claims 1-5, 10-14, 16-20 are amended. Claims 1, 10, 16 are independent claims. Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Summary of claims
3. Claims 1-20 are pending,
Claims 1-5, 10-14, 16-20 are amended,
Claims 1, 10, 16 are independent claims,
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Remarks
4. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed on 1/28/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant argued on pages 11-12 that the cited references including Shaked and Park did not teach the features in the amended claim 1, such as, “identifying a second electronic apparatus to be used after, from among the plurality of electronic apparatuses, based on the use information.” Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that at least Shaked clearly discloses monitoring, storing and analyzing behavioral data of a plurality of IoT devices (Fig. 2 and [0035]), specifically, the system includes a plurality of IoT devices 203, 203’, 203”, and the behavioral patterns, use information and operation data detected from a first IoT device may apply on a second IoT devices. Further, Park is cited to specifically teach control IoT devices based on use information received through the communication interface, and Park teaches a system managing a plurality of sub-devices as well. Accordingly, Shaked and Park still read on the amended claims.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohad Shaked et al (US Publication 20220263738 A1, hereinafter Shaked), and in view of Sihwa Park et al (US Publication 20170325047 A1, hereinafter Park).
As for independent claim 1, Shaked discloses: A server (Shaked: [0032], a system may include or may be, for example, a personal computer, a desktop computer, a laptop computer, a workstation, a server computer, a network device, or any other suitable computing device. For example, a system as described herein may include one or more facility computing device 100 and one or more remote server computers in active communication with one or more facility computing device 100 such as computing device 100, and in active communication with one or more portable or mobile devices such as smartphones, tablets and the like) comprising: a communication interface; and at least one processor operatively connected to the communication interface and configured to (Shaked: [0032], a system may include or may be, for example, a personal computer, a desktop computer, a laptop computer, a workstation, a server computer, a network device, or any other suitable computing device. For example, a system as described herein may include one or more facility computing device 100 and one or more remote server computers in active communication with one or more facility computing device 100 such as computing device 100, and in active communication with one or more portable or mobile devices such as smartphones, tablets and the like): receive use information related to a first electronic apparatus from among a plurality of electronic apparatuses through the communication interface (Shaked: Fig. 2 and [0048]-[0053], receiving behavior information related to a first IoT 203 among a plurality of IoT devices), identify s second electronic apparatus to be used after from among the plurality of electronic apparatuses based on the use information (Shaked: Fig. 4, step 402, monitoring data communications from the plurality of IoT devices; step 403, identifying at least one IoT device of the plurality of IoT devices), and control the communication interface to transmit, to the second electronic apparatus, a first control signal for controlling the second electronic apparatus (Shaked: Fig. 7, 703, transmitting at least one offer to the identified at least one IoT device; please note a second IoT device may be 203’, 203” among a plurality of IoT devices).
Shaked discloses monitoring behavior of IoT devices and control IoT devices based on user behavioral information, but Shaked does not clearly disclose control IoT device based on use information received through the communication interface, in an analogous art of managing IoT devices, Park discloses: receive use information related to a first electronic apparatus from among a plurality of electronic apparatuses through the communication interface (Park: [0060], If it is sensed that a new sub-device is connected to the communication network, the management device 100 may display a graphic interface on the display module 140 to ask a user whether to add the new sub-device to the list of the sub-devices (see middle stage of FIG. 4). If the user inputs the new sub-device through the graphic interface to add the new sub-device to the list of sub-devices through the graphic interface, the management device 100 adds the new sub-device to the list of sub-devices (see lower stage of FIG. 4). Afterwards, the new sub-device will transmit data related to its usage or state through the communication network, and the management device 100 will receive the data through the communication module 110);
Shaked and Park are analogous arts because they are in the same field of endeavor, managing IoT devices based on use data. 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 Shaked using the teachings of Park to include managing IoT devices based on use information through communication interface. It would provide Shaked’s device with enhanced capabilities of collecting user’s command through a graphic interface and managing IoT devices based on user’s needs.
As for claim 2, Shaked-Park discloses: a memory configured to store a neural network model (Shaked: [0039], a dedicated Machine Learning algorithm may learn a behavioral pattern 212 of a particular IoT device 203, e.g., learn a pattern as a sequence of actions carried out by this IoT devices 203), wherein the at least one processor is operatively connected to the memory and is further configured to identify the second electronic apparatus by inputting the use information to the neural network model, and wherein the neural network model is trained using patterns of use by a user of the plurality of electronic apparatuses (Shaked: [0039], a dedicated Machine Learning algorithm may learn a behavioral pattern 212 of a particular IoT device 203, e.g., learn a pattern as a sequence of actions carried out by this IoT devices 203).
As for claim 3, Shaked-Park discloses: identify a first control operation of the second electronic apparatus based on the use information, and control the communication interface to transmit the first control signal to the second electronic apparatus based on the first control operation (Shaked: Fig. 4, step 402, monitoring data communications from the plurality of IoT devices; step 403, identifying at least one IoT device of the plurality of IoT devices, with a behavioral pattern).
As for claim 4, Shaked-Park discloses: identify a first control operation of the second electronic apparatus based on the use information, based on the first control operation being a single first control operation, control the communication interface to transmit the first control signal to the second electronic apparatus based on the single first control operation, and based on the first control operation being a plurality of first control operations, control the communication interface to transmit a signal to display a screen on a display of the second electronic apparatus, wherein the screen is configured to guide a user through the plurality of first control operations (Park: [0060], If it is sensed that a new sub-device is connected to the communication network, the management device 100 may display a graphic interface on the display module 140 to ask a user whether to add the new sub-device to the list of the sub-devices (see middle stage of FIG. 4). If the user inputs the new sub-device through the graphic interface to add the new sub-device to the list of sub-devices through the graphic interface, the management device 100 adds the new sub-device to the list of sub-devices (see lower stage of FIG. 4). Afterwards, the new sub-device will transmit data related to its usage or state through the communication network, and the management device 100 will receive the data through the communication module 110).
As for claim 5, Shaked-Park discloses: identify, based on the use information, at least two electronic apparatuses to be used after from among the plurality of electronic apparatuses, wherein the at least two electronic apparatuses include the second electronic apparatus, and control, based on the at least two electronic apparatuses including a pre-set apparatus, the communication interface to transmit to the pre-set apparatus a second control signal (Shaked: [0047], In some embodiments, the processor 201 predicts at least one IoT device to follow activity of another IoT device).
As for claim 6, Shaked-Park discloses: identify, based on the use information, a second control operation of the pre-set apparatus, identify a third control operation of the pre-set apparatus necessary for performing the second control operation, and control the communication interface to transmit the second control signal to the pre-set apparatus based on at least one of the second control operation or the third control operation (Shaked: [0012], identifying, by the processor, a first IoT device, of the plurality of IoT devices, that attempts to accomplish a task from the list of tasks, identifying, by the processor, at least one second IoT device in proximity to the first device, wherein the identified at least one second IoT device is capable of assisting the first IoT device in accomplishing the task, generating, by the processor, a group of IoT devices comprising the first IoT device and the at least one second IoT device, determining, by the processor, at least one third IoT device capable of assisting the at least one second IoT device in accomplishing the task, and adding, by the processor, the at least one third IoT device to the group).
As for claim 7, Shaked-Park discloses: identify a time-point at which the pre-set apparatus is to operate based on at least one from among an operation state of the pre-set apparatus, a second control operation, or a third control operation, and control the communication interface to transmit information about the time-point at which the pre-set apparatus is to operate to the pre-set apparatus (Shaked: [0040], the processor 201 may monitor communication from at least one IoT device 203 to determine what is the source and/or target of the communication, at what time of day was the communication carried out, how many devices participated in the communication and what is their type; [0048], The behavioral baseline 223 may refer to a pattern of various actions performed by a device (e.g., type, frequency, length in time, data content, location, speed, volume, movement, etc.), over a certain period of time, that represents a standard, normal operation of that specific IOT device or of an IOT device from that type).
As for claim 8, Shaked-Park discloses: wherein the at least one processor is further configured to control the communication interface to transmit a signal to guide an operation of the pre-set apparatus to an electronic apparatus corresponding to the time-point at which the pre-set apparatus is to operate among the at least two electronic apparatuses (Shaked: [0048], The behavioral baseline 223 may refer to a pattern of various actions performed by a device (e.g., type, frequency, length in time, data content, location, speed, volume, movement, etc.), over a certain period of time, that represents a standard, normal operation of that specific IOT device or of an IOT device from that type).
As for claim 9, Shaked-Park discloses: wherein the server comprises an Internet of Things server configured to manage operations of the plurality of electronic apparatuses (Shaked: Abstract, Methods and systems for monitoring behavior of Internet of Things (IoT) devices within a computer network).
As per claim 10, it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by claim 1, thus the rationales for rejecting claim 1 are incorporated herein.
As per claim 11, it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by claim 2, thus the rationales for rejecting claim 2 are incorporated herein.
As per claim 12, it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by claim 3, thus the rationales for rejecting claim 3 are incorporated herein.
As per claim 13, it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by claim 4, thus the rationales for rejecting claim 4 are incorporated herein.
As per claim 14, it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by claim 5, thus the rationales for rejecting claim 5 are incorporated herein.
As per claim 15, it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by claim 6, thus the rationales for rejecting claim 6 are incorporated herein.
As per claim 16, it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by claim 1, thus the rationales for rejecting claim 1 are incorporated herein.
As per claim 17, it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by claim 2, thus the rationales for rejecting claim 2 are incorporated herein.
As per claim 18, it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by claim 3, thus the rationales for rejecting claim 3 are incorporated herein.
As per claim 19, it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by claim 4, thus the rationales for rejecting claim 4 are incorporated herein.
As per claim 20, it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by claim 5, thus the rationales for rejecting claim 5 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