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 .
The following action is in response to the amendment and remarks of 01/08/2026.
By the amendment, claims 1, 2, 6-8, 10-11, 13-16 and 19-26 have been amended.
Claims 1-3, 6-16 and 19-26 are pending and have been considered below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments (Remarks 01/08/2026 pages 11-14) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (Remarks pages 11-13), regarding the 35 USC 102 rejection of at least claims 1 and 14, that KIWIMAGI fails to disclose “a display of a visual indication … of a successful creation of the control relationship” as required by claims 1 and 14. Particularly, Applicant argues that KIWIMAGI’s disclosure of a user drawing lines between devices to establish relationships between the devices and displaying the lines on a wiring diagram (Fig. 4, ¶78) is not the same as the above limitation because (1) the visual indication of claims 1 and 14 occurs after a user indicates an operative coupling (Remarks page 12) and (2) KIWIGAMI merely describes indicating a relationship between devices and not providing indication of a successful creation of the relationship (Remarks page 13). The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In KIWIGAMI, a user draws a line between devices to establish a relationship between the devices (¶78). The relationship is indicated by the line. A drawn line displayed on the GUI is an indication of the relationship between two devices (Fig. 4). This clearly anticipates the limitation of causing a display of a visual indication of a creation of the relationship between the two devices. Further, the drawn line is an indication of a successful creation of the control relationship as the drawn line establishes user-desired relationship between devices such as linking a keypad to a lighting control device. This is successful from the perspective of the user. The term “successful creation” remains broad and does not preclude this interpretation. The arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (Remarks pages 12-13), regarding the 35 USC 102 rejection of claims 6-7 and 19-20, that KIWIGAMI fails to disclose a visual indication let alone a visual indication represented by a change in a display parameter of the line such as a change in at least one of: line color, line weight or line type. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In KIWIGAMI, a user draws a line between devices to establish a relationship between the devices (¶78). A user drawing lines is a change in a display parameter of the line to connect between the devices. This drawn line is the visual indicator as established above. The displayed lines of KIWIGAMI have different attributes indicating different line types (Fig. 4 485, 486). This anticipates the limitations as claimed. The argument is not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6-12, 14 and 19-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KIWIMAGI, US 2005/0119767 A1 published 06/02/2005.
Regarding claim 1, KIWIMAGI discloses a control configuration method, comprising:
causing, by control circuitry, a display of a graphical user interface (GUI) that includes a canvas portion to display icons representative of electrical devices (¶70-77, Fig. 3);
receiving, by the control circuitry, a first user input indicative of a selection of a control-source device and a control-target device (¶77: populating with automation devices by dragging and dropping each device icon such as key-pad and lights, ¶42)
causing a display, in the canvas portion of the GUI, of an icon representative of the control-source device and an icon representative of the control-target device (¶78, Fig. 4);
receiving, by the control circuitry via the GUI, a second user input indicative of an operative coupling between the control-source device and the control-target device (¶78: user draws lines between devices to establish relationships between , Fig. 4);
creating, by the control circuitry, a control relationship between the control-source device and the control-target device responsive to receipt, via the GUI, of a third user input indicative of a type of control between the control-source device and the control-target device (¶78, ¶80: establish script programming, ¶42, Fig. 6);
storing, by the control circuitry in operatively coupled memory circuitry, data representative (¶28, ¶47) of:
a unique identifier associated with the control-source device (¶48-59)
a unique identifier associated with the control-target device (¶48-59); and
the control relationship between the control-source device and the control-target device (¶48-59); and
causing, by the control circuitry, a display of a visual indication in the canvas portion of the GUI of a successful creation of the control relationship between the control-source device and the control-target device (¶78, Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 6, KIWIMAGI discloses the method of claim 1 wherein causing the display of the visual indication of the successful creation of the control relationship between the control-source device and the control-target device further comprises:
causing, by the control circuitry, a change in a display parameter of a line connecting the icon representative of the control-source device with the icon representative of the control-target device (¶78, Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 7, KIWIMAGI discloses the method of claim 6 wherein causing the change in the display parameter of the line connecting the icon representative of the control-source device with the icon representative of the control-target device further comprises:
causing, by the control circuitry, a change in at least one of: a line color, a line weight, or a line type of the line connecting the icon representative of the control-source device with the icon representative of the control-target device (¶78, Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 8, KIWIMAGI discloses the method of claim 1, wherein receiving the second user input indicative of the operative coupling between the control-source device and the control-target device further comprises:
receiving, by the control circuitry via the GUI, the second user input indicative of at least one of: an operative electrical coupling, an operative power coupling, an operative communication coupling, or an operative wireless coupling between the control-source device and the control-target device (¶78).
Regarding claim 9, KIWIMAGI discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving, by the control circuitry via the GUI, a fourth user input indicative of creation of an electrical control zone (¶75-76: selection of room/zone to associate with devices, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 10, KIWIMAGI discloses the method of claim 9, further comprising:
creating, by the control circuitry, an association between at least one of: the control-source device or the control-target device and the electrical control zone responsive to receipt of the fourth user input (¶75-76) and responsive to a selection of at least one of: the icon representative of the control-source device or the icon representative of the control-target device corresponding to the at least one of: the control-source device or the control-target devices (¶77-78: devices positioned in media room zone); and
causing, by the control circuitry, a storage in memory circuitry of data representative of the association between the at least one of: the control-source device or the control-target device and the electrical control zone (¶79).
Regarding claim 11, KIWIMAGI discloses the method of claim 10, further comprising:
causing, by the control circuitry, a display of a zone indicator proximate the at least one of: the icon representative of the control-source device or the icon representative of the control-target device responsive to the selection of the at least one of: the icon representative of the control-source device or the icon representative of the control-target device (Fig. 4 472, Fig. 5 572).
Regarding claim 12, KIWIMAGI discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
causing, by the control circuitry, a graphical display on the GUI of one or more operating parameters of the first control-source device (¶79, Fig. 5).
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.
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.
Claims 2-3 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIWIMAGI in view of SILVA, US 2008/0127063 A1 published 05/29/2008.
Regarding claim 2, KIWIMAGI discloses the method of claim 1, but fails to disclose determining, by the control circuitry, whether the control-source device is compatible with the control-target device via the control relationship.
SILVA discloses methods for a source/target device control GUI (¶9-10). In particular, SILVA discloses determining whether a control-source device is compatible with a control-target device (¶52). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the teachings of KIWIMAGI and SILVA before them before the effective filing of the claimed invention to combine the determination of whether a control-source and control-target device are compatible in a control relationship, as taught by SILVA, with the connecting of a control-source an d control-target device in a control relationship of KIWIGAMI. One would have been motivated to make this combination in order to provide alerts to a user regarding control compatibility, increasing usability and efficiency for a user attempting to integrate and control a variety of consumer electronic devices, as suggested by SILVA (¶7-8, ¶52).
Regarding claim 3, KIWIGAMI and SILVA disclose method of claim 2, and SILVA further discloses:
causing a display, in the canvas portion of the GUI, of an incompatibility warning message responsive to the determination, by the control circuitry, that the control-source device is not compatible with the control-target device (¶52).
Regarding claims 15-16, claims 15-16 recite limitations similar to claims 2-3, respectively, and are similarly rejected.
Claims 13 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIWIGAMI in view of FREI’660, US 2014/0006660 A1, published 01/02/2014.
Regarding claim 13, KIWIGAMI discloses the method of claim 12, and KIWIGAMI further discloses:
wherein the first control-source device comprises a sensor (¶24).
KIWIGAMI fails to disclose the control-source device is an occupancy sensor and causing the graphical display on the GUI to include a detection zone of the occupancy sensor when causing display of the operating parameters of the electrical device.
FREI’660 discloses methods for designing, configuring and monitoring electronic devices (¶20-22). In particular, FREI’660 discloses displaying the electronic devices as icons on a GUI (¶165-167, ¶182-188, Fig. 4C-4D), including operating parameters such as detection zones when the electronic device is an occupancy sensor (¶171: display device configuration information associated with the physical device, ¶137: motion sensor measurement parameters). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the teachings of KIWIGAMI and FREI’660 before them before the effective filing of the claimed invention to combine the displaying of occupancy sensor operating parameters such as occupancy sensor detection zone data, as taught by FREI’660, with the displaying of sensor operating parameters of KIWIGAMI. One would have been motivated to display these parameters in order to provide additional expected information regarding the sensors to a user configuring the system, as suggested by FREI’660 (¶20, ¶171).
Regarding claim 26, claim 26 recites limitations similar to claim 13 and is similarly rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
ACKMANN
US 20170097621 A1
CONFIGURING A CONTROL SYSTEM
VANGEEL
US 20160095192 A1
AUTOMATIC AND DESCENTRALIZED COMMISIONING OF REPLACEMENT LIGHTING UNITS
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ANDREW L TANK whose telephone number is (571)270-1692. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9a-6p.
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, Matthew Ell can be reached at 571-270-3264. 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.
/ANDREW L TANK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2141
Prosecution Insights