DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This office action is a response to an amendment filed 12/10/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-9 and 15 are amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of new grounds of rejection. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Rejections based on newly cited references(s) and interpretations of the previously cited prior art follow.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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.
Claims 1, 2, 4- 11, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Publication No. 2018/0323996 to Roman et al., (hereinafter Roman), in view of US Patent Publication No. 2021/0199327 to Venkatesh et al., (hereinafter Venkatesh), in further view of US Patent Publication No. 2021/0249146 to Stern et al., (hereinafter Stern), and in further view of US Patent No. 11,030,649 to Barakat et al., (hereinafter Barakat)
Regarding claim 1, Roman teaches a smart home control system (Home automation system (i.e a smart home), see p3, 16, Roman) comprising: one or more processors (Processors, see P132-135, Roman); memory in communication with the one or more processors and storing instructions (memory, see p136-p138, P132-138, Roman) that are configured to cause the smart home control system to:
receive a list of devices connected to a home network in a home (A list of connected devices is obtained, see p31, Roman);
determine, from the list of devices, a presence of one or more controllable smart devices, the one or more controllable smart devices operating on a schedule (At least one controlled device is present in a home operated on a schedule, such as at specific times and/or scheduled event, such as a scheduled morning event, see p47, 27, 31-32, 28-27, Roman);
categorize the one or more controllable smart devices into function-based categories (Devices differentiated by their functions to perform specific operations, such as to provide desired functionality. For example, a coffee to prepare coffee, television to display a show, a group of devices to perform a desired routine operation, light with function to vary lighting, etc., see p28, P27-30, 106, 69, Roman) ;
receive first user data (User data, such as pattern, behavior, presence, etc., is obtained, thus data from at least a first user, see P106, 94, 75, 57, 45-46, Roman);
Roman does not explicitly teach a router; user data comprising transaction data associated with a transaction account; determine a duration of an absence of a user in a home based on user data comprising transaction data; and change a schedule of one or more controllable smart devices based on a function-based category and a duration of an absence of a user.
However, Venkatesh from the same or similar field of dwelling controlled devices, teaches determine a duration of an absence of a user in a home based on user data (Occupancy that includes absence and presence, is recorded and predicted for periods of time, meaning a duration of absence determined based on user data, see p3-4, p30-31, Fig. 15, Venkatesh); and change a schedule of one or more controllable smart devices based on a function-based category and a duration of an absence of a user (A modified schedule for operation of a device based on the device’s environmental control functionality (category) and predicted occupancy schedule that includes absence of a user (i.e. duration of absence), see P74, p54, 103, Venkatesh).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control system as described by Roman and incorporating determination of a duration of absence and change of schedule, as taught by Venkatesh.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better control devices based on a user’s occupancy which can provide greater benefits such as energy efficiency and savings by not needlessly operating devices when a user is not present or to better prepare control closer to when a user is predicted to arrive (see p4, p2, Venkatesh).
Roman does not explicitly teach a router; user data comprising transaction data associated with a transaction account; determine a duration of an absence of a user in a home based on user data comprising transaction data; and change a schedule of one or more controllable smart devices based on a function-based category and a duration of an absence of a user.
However, Stern from the same or similar field of dwelling controlled devices, teaches a router (Router used in s smart home, and which can provide a list of connected devices, see p3, p73, 76, 86, p5, p71, p31, p30, 11, Stern).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control system as described by the combination including Roman and incorporating a router, as taught by Stern.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better provide a device that permits interconnection of devices to form a network, and that permits collection and access to network related information, including devices connected to the network, and that permits availability of functionality (see p86, p3, p73, 76, 86, p5, p71, p31, p30, 11, Stern).
Roman does not explicitly teach user data comprising transaction data associated with a transaction account; determine a duration of an absence of a user in a home based on user data comprising transaction data;
However, Barakat from the same or similar field of user data and analysis, teaches user data comprising transaction data associated with a transaction account (Data related to a user can include purchase transactions associated with the user’s account and user device, see C5 L12-27, C8 L15 to C9 L20, Barakat); determine a duration of an absence of a user in a home based on user data comprising transaction data (Data related to a user can include purchases associated with an account, and can be used to determine a user is likely at the office during a weekday and returning home in the evening based on transactions in the morning and evening, thus constituting a duration of absence, see C8 L15 to C9 L20, C5 L12-27, Barakat).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control system as described by the combination including Roman and incorporating user data associated with an account and duration away, as taught by Barakat.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better infer a user locations and times for which it may be undesirable or more optimal to engage in a desired aspect associated with the user (see C1 L1-20; C1; C8 L15 to C9 L20, C5 L12-27, Barakat).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Roman, Venkatesh, Stern, and Barakat teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Roman further teaches wherein a smart home control system uses a first machine learning model to categorize one or more controllable smart devices into function-based categories (Machine learning used in categorizing controlled devices, such as into function based operation routines, see p28-29, p106, abs., p4, 42, 75-76, Roman).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Roman, Venkatesh, Stern, and Barakat teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Venkatesh further teaches wherein a smart home control system uses a second machine learning model to determine a duration of an absence of a user in the home based on user data (Machine learning used to analyze and form predicted occupancy schedule that includes absence of a user (i.e. duration of absence), see p4, P74, p54, 103, Venkatesh) .
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control system as described by the combination including Roman and incorporating machine learning to determine occupancy of a user based on user data, as taught by Venkatesh.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better provide an known automated reasoning process that gathers and analyzes information to formulate a desired conclusion emulating learning over time of collected information, and that serves to better control devices based on a user’s occupancy which can provide greater benefits such as energy efficiency and savings by not needlessly operating devices when a user is not present or to better prepare control closer to when a user is predicted to arrive (see p4, p2, P74, p54, 103, Venkatesh).
Barakat further teaches transaction data, wherein: a transaction data comprises purchase-level data indicating items purchased by a user, and a transaction account is associated with a transaction card (Data related to a user can include purchases associated with an account, such as a credit card, see C8 L1 to C9 L20, C5 L12-27, Barakat).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control system as described by the combination including Roman and incorporating consideration of user data associated with purchases of a card account, as taught by Barakat.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better use data that can be indicative of user habits, locations, and patterns a user locations and times for which inferences of interest can be deduced or learned, such as work patterns or repetitive absences from home (see C8 L1 to C9 L20, C1 L1-20; C1; C5 L12-27, Barakat).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Roman, Venkatesh, Stern, and Barakat teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Venkatesh further teaches wherein a user data used by a second machine learning model comprises travel data associated with a user (Machine learning using travel information, see p3-4, p37, Venkatesh).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control system as described by the combination including Roman and incorporating consideration of travel data, as taught by Venkatesh.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better determine a user’s predicted occupancy which can provide greater benefits such as energy efficiency and savings by not needlessly operating devices when a user is not present or to better prepare control closer to when a user is predicted to arrive, by considering if a user is traveling toward or away from a desired location, which provides a certain probability that the user may or may not be traveling to the location (see p3-4, p2, P74, p54, 103, Venkatesh).
Barakat further teaches transaction data (Data related to a user can include purchases associated with an account, see C8 L15 to C9 L20, C5 L12-27, Barakat).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control system as described by the combination including Roman and incorporating user data associated with an account, as taught by Barakat.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better infer a user locations and times for which it may be undesirable or more optimal to engage in a desired aspect associated with the user (see C1 L1-20; C1; C8 L15 to C9 L20, C5 L12-27, Barakat).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Roman, Venkatesh, Stern, and Barakat teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Venkatesh further teaches wherein a second machine learning model uses all of a user data from two days prior and select parts of user data from six months prior (Historical data in logs is used machine learning, where the data used for learning user patterns and behavior can be selected for a desired period of time and can include or exclude desired time periods within the data obtained. The time period can be days, months, and/or years, thus a desired historical data used for learning can include all data in prior couple of days and at least some data within months of a year, see p34, p31, 50, p69, p80, 76, 51, Venkatesh)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control system as described by the combination including Roman and incorporating a prior user data over specified periods, as taught by Venkatesh.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better use the most relevant recent historical user pattern behavior over a desired determine period of time to provide to a machine learning that can provide a more relevant predicted occupancy which can provide greater benefits such as energy efficiency and savings, of users most recent activity (see p34, p31, 50, 51, p69, p80, p3-4, p2, P74, p54, 103, Venkatesh; P37, Roman).
Barakat further teaches transaction data (Data related to a user can include purchases associated with an account, see C8 L15 to C9 L20, C5 L12-27, Barakat).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control system as described by the combination including Roman and incorporating user data associated with an account, as taught by Barakat.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better infer a user locations and times for which it may be undesirable or more optimal to engage in a desired aspect associated with the user (see C1 L1-20; C1; C8 L15 to C9 L20, C5 L12-27, Barakat).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Roman, Venkatesh, Stern, and Barakat teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Roman further teaches wherein a smart home control system uses a series of machine learning models, one for each of function-based categories, to change a schedule of controllable smart devices, wherein the series of machine learning models are trained with data from other users (Machine learning used for a plurality of function based operation routines with at least one controlled device, including scheduled routines such as morning or evening schedules that can be changed/updated based on user data patterns such as variable movie night operations, where user data can comprise other users such as multiple users, see p106, p69-71, 73, 27-28, 45, 47, 42,94, Roman), and a memory stores further instructions that are configured to cause a smart home control system to: receive additional user data of an additional user residing in the home (Data obtained from users in a home, thus there is consideration of a second user and second user data, and data can be absence, see p44, p94, p47, p78, p119, 127, p76, 94, Roman); wherein: a schedule of one or more controllable smart devices is based on the user and the additional user (Data obtained from multiple users in a home can be used to schedule when a control is performed, and the system can use al l user information, or specific users only, see p47, p44, p37, p94, p47, p78, p119, 127, p76, 94, Roman).
Venkatesh from the same or similar field of dwelling controlled devices, teaches determine a duration of an absence of a user in a home based on user data (Occupancy that includes absence and presence, is recorded and predicted for periods of time, meaning a duration of absence determined based on user data, see p3-4, p30-31, Fig. 15, Venkatesh); and change a schedule of one or more controllable smart devices based on a function-based category and a duration of an absence of a user (A modified schedule for operation of a device based on the device’s environmental control functionality (category) and predicted occupancy schedule that includes absence of a user (i.e. duration of absence), see P74, p54, 103, Venkatesh).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control system as described by Roman and incorporating determination of a duration of absence and change of schedule, as taught by Venkatesh.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better control devices based on a user’s occupancy which can provide greater benefits such as energy efficiency and savings by not needlessly operating devices when a user is not present or to better prepare control closer to when a user is predicted to arrive (see p4, p2, Venkatesh).
Barakat further teaches user data comprising transaction data associated with a transaction account (Data related to a user can include purchase transactions associated with the user’s account and user device, see C5 L12-27, C8 L15 to C9 L20, Barakat); determine a duration of an absence of a user in a home based on user data comprising transaction data (Data related to a user can include purchases associated with an account, and can be used to determine a user is likely at the office during a weekday and returning home in the evening based on transactions in the morning and evening, thus constituting a duration of absence, see C8 L15 to C9 L20, C5 L12-27, Barakat).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control system as described by the combination including Roman and incorporating user data associated with an account and duration away, as taught by Barakat.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better infer a user locations and times for which it may be undesirable or more optimal to engage in a desired aspect associated with the user (see C1 L1-20; C1; C8 L15 to C9 L20, C5 L12-27, Barakat).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Roman, Venkatesh, Stern, and Barakat teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Roman further teaches wherein a memory stores further instructions that are configured to cause a smart home control system to: generate a first graphical user interface displaying a list of devices connected to a home network of a first user, the list of devices categorized into function-based categories, and prompting the first user to provide configuration information regarding the one or more controllable smart devices (A user can be prompted for approval or modification (ie configuration) of function based routine categories, such as scenes containing lists groups of at least one device, and where interaction with the user can be through user graphical display, see p121, 109, 115, 81, 49,58, p47, 27, 31-32, 28-27, Roman); transmit a first graphical user interface to a user device for display (Graphical user interface for user, see 109, 115, 81, 49,58, p47, 27, 31-32, 28-27, Roman); receive, via a first graphical user interface of a user device, a configuration information for one or more controllable smart devices (User can provide adjustments to a scene configuration including adjustments of information related to a control device, through interface device, see 58, p121, 109, 115, 81, 49,58, p47, 27, 31-32, 28-27, Roman); update the function-based categories and update the list of devices based on the configuration information (A function based category, such as a scene can be adjusted, including by adjustment to appliances, thus updating, see 58, p121, 109, 115, 81, 49,58, p47, 27, 31-32, 28-27, Roman); generate an updated first graphical user interface displaying the updated list of devices categorized into the updated function-based categories; and transmit the updated first graphical user interface to the user device for display (Scene adjustments and information can be provided via graphical user interface, see 58, p121, 109, 49, 115, 81, 49,58, p47, 27, 31-32, 28-27, Roman).
Regarding claim 9, Roman teaches a smart home control system (Home automation system (i.e a smart home), see p3, 16, Roman) comprising: one or more processors (Processors, see P132-135, Roman); memory in communication with the one or more processors and storing instructions (memory, see p136-p138, P132-138, Roman) that are configured to cause the smart home control system to: receive first user data (User data, such as pattern, behavior, presence, etc., is obtained, any one of the data can be interpreted as first user data, see P106, 94, 75, 57, 45-46, Roman); receive a list of devices connected to a home network (A list of connected devices is obtained, see p31, Roman); determine, from the list of devices, a presence of one or more controllable smart devices, the one or more controllable smart devices operating on a schedule based on an initial prediction (At least one controlled device is present in a home operated on a schedule, such as at specific times and/or scheduled event, such as a scheduled morning event, and determined based on a machine learning of user behavior patterns, and where the learning constitutes a prediction of what a user would likely control at likely times that a user may perform certain routines, such as evening or morning, see p47, 27, 31-32, 28-27, Roman); categorize the one or more controllable smart devices into function-based categories (Devices differentiated by their functions to perform specific operations, such as to provide desired functionality. For example, a coffee to prepare coffee, television to display a show, a group of devices to perform a desired routine operation, light with function to vary lighting, etc., see p28, P27-30, 106, 69, Roman ); receive second user data (User data, such as pattern, behavior, presence, etc., is obtained, any other of the received data can be interpreted as second user data, see P106, 94, 75, 57, 45-46, Roman);
Roman does not explicitly teach a router; user data comprising first transaction data associated with a transaction account; determine an initial prediction regarding an absence of a user from a home based on first user data comprising first transaction data; data comprising second transaction data associated with the transaction account; determine a revised prediction regarding an absence of a user in a home based on second user data comprising the second transaction data; and change a schedule of one or more controllable smart devices based on a function-based category and a duration of an absence of a user.
However, Venkatesh from the same or similar field of dwelling controlled devices, teaches determine an initial prediction regarding an absence of a user from a home based on first user data (Occupancy that includes predicted absence and presence, is recorded and predicted for periods of time, meaning a duration of absence determined based on a first user data, see p3-4, p30-31, Fig. 15, Venkatesh); determine a revised prediction regarding an absence of a user in a home based on second user data (Corrected (revised) schedule prediction based on further obtained (second) user data, see p75-76, p88, p32, Fig. 15, Venkatesh); and change a schedule of one or more controllable smart devices based on a function-based category and a duration of an absence of a user (A modified schedule for operation of a device based on the device’s environmental control functionality (category) and predicted occupancy schedule that includes absence of a user (i.e. duration of absence), see P74, p54, 103, Venkatesh).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control system as described by Roman and incorporating determination of a duration of absence and change of schedule, as taught by Venkatesh.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better control devices based on a user’s occupancy which can provide greater benefits such as energy efficiency and savings by not needlessly operating devices when a user is not present or to better prepare control closer to when a user is predicted to arrive, and to better maintain an up to date prediction by periodically correcting machine learned schedules using periodically obtained actual user data (see p4, p2, p88, p74, Venkatesh).
Roman does not explicitly teach a router;
However, Stern from the same or similar field of dwelling controlled devices, teaches a router (Router used in s smart home, and which can provide a list of connected devices, see p3, p73, 76, 86, p5, p71, p31, p30, 11, Stern).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control system as described by the combination including Roman and incorporating a router, as taught by Stern.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better provide a device that permits interconnection of devices to form a network, and that permits collection and access to network related information, including devices connected to the network, and that permits availability of functionality (see p86, p3, p73, 76, 86, p5, p71, p31, p30, 11, Stern).
Roman does not explicitly teach user data comprising transaction data associated with a transaction account; determine a duration of an absence of a user in a home based on user data comprising first transaction data; data comprising second transaction data associated with the transaction account; determine a revised prediction regarding an absence of a user based second transaction data;
However, Barakat from the same or similar field of user data and analysis, teaches user data comprising transaction data associated with a transaction account (Data related to a user can include purchase transactions associated with the user’s account and user device, see C5 L12-27, C8 L15 to C9 L20, Barakat); determine a duration of an absence of a user in a home based on user data comprising first transaction data (Data related to a user can include purchases associated with an account, and can be used to determine a user is likely at the office during a weekday and returning home in the evening based on transactions in the morning and evening, thus constituting a duration of absence, see C8 L15 to C9 L20, C5 L12-27, Barakat); data comprising second transaction data associated with the transaction account (Data related to a user can include other purchases associated with an account, such as purchases at a different location denoting a vacation, see C8 L15 to C9 L20, C5 L12-27, Barakat); determine a revised prediction regarding an absence of a user based second transaction data (Data other than a normal commute routine can be used to revise normal work inference to a revised inference that a user is away from home (absent) while on vacation, see C8 L15 to C9 L20, C5 L12-27, Barakat);.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control system as described by the combination including Roman and incorporating user data associated with an account and duration away, as taught by Barakat.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better infer a user locations and times for which it may be undesirable or more optimal to engage in a desired aspect associated with the user (see C1 L1-20; C1; C8 L15 to C9 L20, C5 L12-27, Barakat).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Roman, Venkatesh, Stern, and Barakat teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Venkatesh further teaches wherein an initial prediction regarding an absence of a user in a home and a revised prediction regarding the absence of the user in the home is a binary output (Prediction on occupancy and corrected/adjusted occupancies, are binary as indicated by one and zero digits, and the nature of occupancy being present or not present, see P5-P6, p32, p44, Figs. 15, 9, 6, Venkatesh).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control system as described by the combination including Roman and incorporating binary output, as taught by Venkatesh.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to more simply represent an occupancy state of a user being present or not present (see P5-P6, p32, Figs. 15, 9, 6, Venkatesh).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Roman, Venkatesh, Stern, and Barakat teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Venkatesh further teaches wherein a binary output is a determination of whether a user will be at a home on an evening of an initial prediction and a revised prediction (Prediction on occupancy and corrected/adjusted occupancies, are binary as indicated by one and zero digits, and provides indication of occupancy (whether a user will be home or not), including in the evening hours as seen by figs. 15, 9, etc., see p44, P5-P6, p32, Figs. 15, 9, 6, Venkatesh).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control system as described by the combination including Roman and incorporating binary output determination of user occupancy on evening predictions, as taught by Venkatesh.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to more completely and more simply represent an occupancy and predicted occupancy state of a user being present or not present throughout the day including evening hours in a twenty four hour day (see figs. 15, 9, etc., see p44, P5-P6, p32, Figs. 15, 9, 6, Venkatesh).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Roman, Venkatesh, Stern, and Barakat teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Venkatesh further teaches wherein a schedule of one or more controllable smart devices comprises multiple options based on a duration of an absence of a user (A schedule for controlling at least one device, such as an hvac, has multiple options of determining occupancy status based a duration of absence of a user, for example a determined absence with user moving away has the implication of a longer absence, and schedule is thus placed with the away option, whereas a determined absence with user moving toward a home has the implication of a shorter absence, and a schedule option is thus present, see p37, 30-31, 49, Venkatesh).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control system as described by the combination including Roman and incorporating multiple options in relation to a schedule and absence duration of a user, as taught by Venkatesh.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better differentiate the occupancy status based on projected absence time so as to set a schedule with projected status that can be used for control based on occupancy (see p37, 30-31, 49, Venkatesh).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Roman, Venkatesh, Stern, and Barakat teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Roman further teaches wherein a schedule of one or more controllable smart devices is changed by a machine learning model, based on first user data, second user data, and a function-based category of one or more controllable smart devices, and trained with historical user data (A schedule control operation can be created or adjusted based on various user data (ie first and second) and functionality grouping of devices, and based on machine learning, see p68-69, 75, 61, 45, 27-30, 73, 106, Roman).
Regarding claim 15, Roman teaches a smart home control system (Home automation system (i.e a smart home), see p3, 16, Roman) comprising: one or more processors (Processors, see P132-135, Roman); memory in communication with the one or more processors and storing instructions (memory, see p136-p138, P132-138, Roman) that are configured to cause the smart home control system to: receive a list of devices connected to a home network at a home of a user (A list of connected devices is obtained, see p31, Roman); determine, from the list of devices, a presence of one or more controllable smart devices, the one or more controllable smart devices operating on a schedule (At least one controlled device is present in a home operated on a schedule, such as at specific times and/or scheduled event, such as a scheduled morning event, see p47, 27, 31-32, 28-27, Roman); categorize the one or more controllable smart devices into function-based categories (Devices differentiated by their functions to perform specific operations, such as to provide desired functionality. For example, a coffee to prepare coffee, television to display a show, a group of devices to perform a desired routine operation, light with function to vary lighting, etc., see p28, P27-30, 106, 69, Roman );
Roman does not explicitly teach a router; iteratively perform the following steps while a user is away from a home: receive return data regarding a user, the return data comprising transaction data associated with a transaction account; determine a user return time estimate based on return data comprising the transaction data; and revise a schedule and operation of one or more controllable smart devices based on a function-based category and a user return time estimate, and the transaction data.
However, Venkatesh from the same or similar field of dwelling controlled devices, teaches iteratively perform the following steps while a user is away from a home: receive return data regarding a user (In at least one iteration, a data of a user is collected while away from home, and which includes data of a user position and/or traveling towards home (ie. returning), see 36-37, Venkatesh); determine a user return time estimate based on return data (From collected data, a likely return of user can be determined, and incorporated in a predicted occupancy schedule, see P36-37, Venkatesh); and revise a schedule of one or more controllable smart devices based on a function-based category and a user return time estimate (A modified schedule for operation of a device based on the device’s environmental control functionality (category) and predicted occupancy schedule based at least in part on likely user return times, see P36-37, P74, p54, 103, Venkatesh)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control system as described by Roman and incorporating determination of a return estimate and change of schedule, as taught by Venkatesh.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better control devices based on a user’s occupancy which can provide greater benefits such as energy efficiency and savings by not needlessly operating devices when a user is not present or to better prepare control closer to when a user is predicted to arrive (see p4, p2, Venkatesh).
Roman does not explicitly teach a router;
However, Stern from the same or similar field of dwelling controlled devices, teaches a router (Router used in s smart home, and which can provide a list of connected devices, see p3, p73, 76, 86, p5, p71, p31, p30, 11, Stern).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control system as described by the combination including Roman and incorporating a router, as taught by Stern.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better provide a device that permits interconnection of devices to form a network, and that permits collection and access to network related information, including devices connected to the network, and that permits availability of functionality (see p86, p3, p73, 76, 86, p5, p71, p31, p30, 11, Stern).
Roman does not explicitly teach receive return data regarding a user, the return data comprising transaction data associated with a transaction account; determine a user return time estimate based on return data comprising the transaction data; and a schedule based on a user return time estimate, and the transaction data.
However, Barakat from the same or similar field of user data and analysis, teaches receive return data regarding a user, the return data comprising transaction data associated with a transaction account (Data related to a user can include purchases associated with an account, and that can be used to infer a likely return of a user home, see C8 L15 to C9 L20, C5 L12-27, Barakat); determine a user return time estimate based on return data comprising the transaction data (Data related to a user can be used to infer a likely return of a user, such as at an evening time, see C8 L15 to C9 L20, C5 L12-27, Barakat); and a schedule based on a user return time estimate, and a transaction data (A schedule, such as a work or weekday schedule, of a user being away can be inferred based on user estimated return times based on user transaction data, see C8 L1 to C9 L20, C5 L12-27, Barakat)..
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control system as described by the combination including Roman and incorporating user data associated with an account and duration away, as taught by Barakat.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better infer a user locations and times for which it may be undesirable or more optimal to engage in a desired aspect associated with the user (see C1 L1-20; C1; C8 L15 to C9 L20, C5 L12-27, Barakat).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Roman, Venkatesh, Stern, and Barakat teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Barakat further teaches return data includes user data from an account associated with a user (Data related to a user can include purchases associated with an account, and that can be used to infer a likely location return of a user, see C8 L15 to C9 L20, C5 L12-27, Barakat).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control system as described by the combination including Roman and incorporating user data associated with an account, as taught by Barakat.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better infer a user locations and times for which it may be undesirable or more optimal to engage in a desired aspect associated with the user (see C1 L1-20; C1; C8 L15 to C9 L20, C5 L12-27, Barakat).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Roman, Venkatesh, Stern, and Barakat teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Venkatesh further teaches wherein receiving the return data regarding the user, determining the user return time estimate based on the return data, and revising the schedule of the one or more controllable smart devices based on the function-based category and the user return time estimate are performed iteratively on an event basis (Data related to a user returning home, determination based on said data, and adjustment of a schedule based on times likely of a user returning home, is performed in at least one iteration in the event of a user being away from home, see P36-37, P74, p54, 103, Venkatesh).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control system as described by Roman and incorporating consideration of an event for an iteration, as taught by Venkatesh.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better obtain needed information of an event that impacts occupancy, and can be used to control devices based on a user’s occupancy which can provide greater benefits such as energy efficiency and savings by not needlessly operating devices when a user is not present or to better prepare control closer to when a user is predicted to return (see p4, p2, Venkatesh).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Roman, Venkatesh, Stern, and Barakat teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Venkatesh further teaches wherein return data includes location data (Data of a user is collected while away from home, and which includes data of a user position and/or traveling towards home (ie. returning), see 36-37, Venkatesh).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control system as described by Roman and incorporating location data as return data, as taught by Venkatesh.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better use data that allows a user to be tracked and allows determination of where a user is located in relation to a home, and with time can allow discerning direction of a user so as to predict when a user is predicted to arrive (see p4, p2, Venkatesh).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Roman, Venkatesh, Stern, and Barakat teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Venkatesh further teaches wherein receiving return data regarding a user, determining a user return time estimate based on the return data, and revising a schedule of one or more controllable smart devices based on a function-based category and the user return time estimate are performed iteratively on a time basis (Data of a user is collected at an at least one iteration of a time when a user is away from home, and which includes timestamped event data of a user position and/or traveling towards home (ie. returning), see 36-37, Venkatesh).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control system as described by Roman and incorporating a time basis, as taught by Venkatesh.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better focus on times when a user is away and use that data that allows a user to be tracked and allows determination of where a user is located in relation to a home, and with time can allow discerning direction of a user so as to predict when a user is predicted to arrive (see p4, p2, Venkatesh).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Roman, Venkatesh, Stern, and Barakat teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Roman further teaches wherein a memory stores further instructions that are configured to cause a smart home control system to: generate a first graphical user interface displaying a list of devices connected to a home network of the user, the list of devices categorized into the function-based categories (A user can be prompted for approval or modification (ie configuration) of function based routine categories, such as scenes containing lists groups of at least one device, and where interaction with the user can be through user graphical display, see p121, 109, 115, 81, 49,58, p47, 27, 31-32, 28-27, Roman); transmit a first graphical user interface to a user device for display (Graphical user interface for user, see 109, 115, 81, 49,58, p47, 27, 31-32, 28-27, Roman);
Venkatesh displaying a schedule for each of one or more controllable smart devices based on a user return time estimate (A graphical user interface can be used to present a predicted schedule with occupancy schedule that is based on user data including returning data, see p59, P36-37, P74, p54, 103, Venkatesh); receive, via a first graphical user interface of a user device, an indication to change a user return time estimate (A graphical user interface can be used to receive an indication that a schedule is not approved, thus an implication of change predicted occupancy schedule, and thus a rerun of estimates, see p59, P36-37, P74, p54, 103, Venkatesh); update the user return time estimate and the schedule for each of the one or more controllable smart devices based on the indication (An updated process for generating a new occupancy schedule is performed, see p59, P36-37, P74, p54, 103, Venkatesh); generate an updated first graphical user interface displaying an updated schedule for each of one or more controllable smart devices (An updated process for generating a new occupancy schedule is performed, meaning an implication of generating an updated schedule for confirmation, see p59, P36-37, P74, p54, 103, Venkatesh); and transmit an updated first graphical user interface to a user device for display (An updated process for generating a new occupancy schedule is performed, meaning an implication of generating and transmitting for display to a user an updated schedule for confirmation, see p59, P36-37, P74, p54, 103, Venkatesh).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control system as described by Roman and incorporating graphical display to present return data and receive data, as taught by Venkatesh.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better inform a user of predicted information, such as a derived or learned occupancy schedule of times when a user is likely to be away and return, so as to permit the user to confirm or not approve the derived information, such that the system can use the derived information or devise new estimates (see p59, P36-37, P74, p54, 103, Venkatesh).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roman, in view of Venkatesh, in further view of Stern, in further view of Bakarat, and in further view of US Patent Publication No. 2022/0027637 to Madded et al., (hereinafter Madden)
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Roman, Venkatesh, Stern, and Barakat teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Roman further teaches wherein a first user data and a second user data comprise location data (Data obtained from users over time includes location data, thus at various times and/or for different users, there is first and second user data, see p78, p119, 127, p76, 94, Roman)
Roman does not explicitly teach location data comprises a flight reservation;
However, Madden from the same or similar field of dwelling controlled devices and user related information, teaches data comprises a flight reservation (Itinerary information indicative of flight reservation is related to a user and can be used in predicting user schedule and occupancy of a house, see p62, Madden).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control system as described by the combination including Roman and incorporating user flight information, as taught by Madden.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better infer a user’s schedule and probable arrival time at a house (see p62, Madden).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
2. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
While Roman discloses a mart home control system for receiving a list of devices connected to home network, determining from the list of devices a presence of one or more controllable devices operating on a schedule, categorizing the one or more controllable devices into function-based categories, and receiving user data, and while Venkatesh teaches determination of a duration of an absence of a user based on user data, and changing a schedule of one or more controllable devices based on a function-category and duration of a user absence, and while Barakat teaches determining user absence based on user data associated with a purchase transaction of an account, none of these references, discovered within the allotted time for search and consideration, taken either alone or in combination with the prior art of record disclose a smart home control system, including:
(Claim 3) “…wherein: the smart home control system uses algorithmic rules to categorize the one or more controllable smart devices into the function-based categories, and wherein the memory stores further instructions that are configured to cause the smart home control system to: determine, from the transaction data, that one or more items purchased by the first user correspond to the one or more controllable smart devices, and matching the one or more items purchased by the user to the one or more controllable smart devices operating on the schedule.”, and
in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claimed invention, wherein the novelty is not in one limitation, but rather in the combination of all the limitations. It is for these reasons that the applicant's invention defines over the prior art of record.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nell et al., US. Patent Publication No. 2017/0357637 teaches an intelligent automated assistant in a home environment that can infer user intent.
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 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 EMILIO J SAAVEDRA whose telephone number is (571)270-5617. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30am-5:30pm (EST).
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, Robert E Fennema can be reached at (571) 272-2748. 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.
/EMILIO J SAAVEDRA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117