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
Per Applicant’s Request for Continued Examination 4/24/26
Claims 1 and 13 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
CLAIMS 1-9 AND 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(2) as being anticipated by SMITH et al (US 2019/0349426).
a. Per claim 1, SMITH et al teach an electronic device comprising:
a display (paras 0363, 0768—display);
a communication module comprising communication circuitry (paras 1442-1443, 1471-1472—communication medium, instructions and circuitry);
memory storing instructions (paras 0352-354, 0639, 0815—memory); and
at least one processor comprising processing circuitry and operatively connected to the display, the communication module, and the memory, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor (paras 351-356, 362-363—processor, display and memory), individually and/or collectively, cause the electronic device to:
receive, from an external electronic device, first Internet of things (IoT) control information through the communication module (paras 0285, 0305, 0316, 0796—receiving IoT control information), the first IoT control information comprising device information of at least one external IoT device included in a first IoT network and operation information configured for the at least one external IoT device, the operation information being configured to cause each of the at least one external IoT device to perform an operation, the operation information including at least one of turning on or off the at least one external IoT device, controlling a light level of the at least one external IoT device, or controlling a volume level of the at least one external IoT device (paras 1338-1344, 2760—authorized device to access the first network based on authentication to the first network that the device has credentials to access to second network, registering an IoT device to a first network through a portal to a second network; paras 0306-307, 1441, 1803, 1832, 2381—detection of light levels, motion sensors placed on light poles, controlling a light limit, light alert and sound generator, audio or visible signals);
identify IoT devices connected in a second IoT network including the electronic device (paras 1342-1343, 2750—an IoT device registered to a first network through a portal to a second network, identifying the device as authenticated to access the second network);
determine, among the identified IoT devices connected to the second IoT network, at least one IoT device having device information corresponding to the device information in the first IoT control information based on a user environment of the electronic device (paras 0741, 1438-1442, 1626, 2790—the IoT determines if a device lifetime is less than the lifetime specified in an SLA for a particular user or account); and
generate second IoT control information comprising the device information of the determined at least one IoT device and operation information of the determined at least one IoT device by converting at least a portion of the first IoT control information based on the user environment of the electronic device (paras 0303, 0491, 0790-791, 0806, 1495, 1575—perform standards conversion to provide multi-standard connectivity, enabling IoT devices using different protocols to communicate, convert the data from the intermediate state to a second sematic representation useful if data from different IoT networks is passing through the IoT gateway; translate the ingress payload to a semantically intermediate, or IoT gateway, representation, then to translate the semantically intermediate representation into the egress representation).
Claim 13 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 1, and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
b. Per claim 2, SMITH et al teach the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to determine a main device and at least one sub device among the at least one IoT devices and operation information to be applied to the main device and the at least one sub device based on the first IoT control information (para 1435—the master device may reconfigure the external modules of the IoT device so that a second IoT device may use them while the first IoT device may be redeployed for another task or purpose; paras 1547-1548, 1653, 1660-1661, 2960—IoT subnets).
Claim 14 contains subject matter substantially equivalent to the subject matter of claim 2 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
c. Per claim 3, SMITH et al teach the electronic device of claim 2, wherein the at least one processor is configured to: identify location information of the main device; and determine at least one IoT device registered to have location information equal to the location information of the main device as the at least one sub device (paras 0727, 1567-1579, 1596-1597, 1631-1634, 1642-1646, 1652, 2124—IoT device for discovery of resources and geolocation sector identification, obtain satellite-aided navigation location information).
Claim 15 contains subject matter substantially equivalent to the subject matter of claim 3 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
d. Per claim 4, SMITH et al teach the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to determine, as a main device, one of IoT the identified IoT devices of a type equal to device information of the at least one external IoT device among the identified IoT devices (paras 1402, 1529, 1653, 1850, 1914, 2447—attributes for machines may include type of device or type and version of software; IoT networks include a variety of device types, creation of group identities, type identities, object types and IoT subnets).
Claim 16 contains subject matter substantially equivalent to the subject matter of claim 4 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
e. Per claim 5, SMITH et al teach the electronic device of claim 4, wherein the at least one the processor is configured to, based on a capability of main device being different from a capability of the at least one external IoT device, convert operation information of the first IoT control information based on the capability of the main device to determine the operation information of the second IoT control information (paras 0727, 1425, 1447—endpoint nodes may be IoT devices that have registered their identity and capability with the NDC, devices may flag conflicts between the device capability and the requirements of an attached component, capability threshold referring to a minimum functional compatibility between the resource hardware component and the external module indicating a minimal ability to function together; paras 0790-791, 1432, 1451-54, 1495—reconfiguration and translation of functions for communication and protocol conversion compatibility).
Claim 17 contains subject matter substantially equivalent to the subject matter of claim 5 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
f. Per claim 6, SMITH et al teach the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to: store user pattern information for the at least one IoT devices in the second IoT network in the memory; and determine a main device based on the stored user pattern information (paras 0462, 0474, 0635, 0719, 0849, 0905, 0966, 1257, 1559—maintaining a blockchain history to inform the Image Repository regarding the popularity of devices referencing its images; historical databases maintained in the IoT device, data historian may track data moving in and out of the node, such as inbound and outbound data requests; trace histories for tracing behavior, host/service historical records and patterns).
g. Per claim 7, SMITH et al teach the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to, based on there being no IoT device of a type equal to device information of the at least one external IoT device among the identified IoT devices, determine one of the identified IoT devices a main device based on text configured for the first IoT control information (paras 0379-382, 0385-387, 0392, 0398—all IoT objects are typed, though not all may have a credential that authenticates the type, if the type is not created, the type name server issues a request to create the type in the blockchain, re-verifying and regenerating a type hierarchy, type credentials may include credentials programmed into the device by the manufacturer, for example, for attestation, or credentials provided to the IoT device).
Claim 18 contains subject matter substantially equivalent to the subject matter of claim 7 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
h. Per claim 8, SMITH et al teach the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to determine a main device among at least one pre-registered IoT device through an application (paras 1332-1333, 1342, 2250, 2263, 2750, 2760—IoT network includes a device registrar to register a device to a first network through a portal to a second network).
Claim 19 contains subject matter substantially equivalent to the subject matter of claim 8 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
i. Per claim 9, SMITH et al teach the electronic device of claim 8, wherein the at least one processor is configured to, based on an IoT device corresponding to device information of the first IoT control information not being pre-registered, discover the IoT device corresponding to the device information of the first IoT control information in the second IoT network (paras 0376-377—enrolls new types based on enrollment requests, enrolling a type or object means registering the type or object in a database or list of types or objects).
Claim 20 contains subject matter substantially equivalent to the subject matter of claim 9 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
j. Per claim 11, SMITH et al teach the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to, based on the operation information of the first IoT control information being received and/or the operation information of the second IoT control information being generated, provide a notification through the display (paras 0498, 0500, 0895-896, 1435, 1480, 1689, 1726-1730, 1774—providing routing notifications, topic notifications and QOS notifications for display of usage and changes).
k. Per claim 12, SMITH et al teach the electronic device of claim 1, further teach wherein the at least one processor is configured to receive the operation information of the first IoT control information from the at least one external IoT device or a cloud server through the communication module (paras 0008-9, 0244, 0305-309, 0311, 0316—cloud computing network and cloud server, large number of IoT devices may be communicate through the cloud, control communications to specific resources).
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.
CLAIM 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SMITH et al (US 2019/0349426) in view of ARNBERG et al (US 2020/0092701).
Per claim 10, SMITH et al and YI et al teach the electronic device of claim 1, as applied above, further teach the device user interface and API (paras 0935, 1308), yet fail to explicitly teach “wherein the at least one processor is configured to, based on identifying that a plurality of IoT devices which can operate as a main device among the at least one IoT device is plural, provide a menu for selecting one of the plurality of IoT devices through the display”. However, ARNBERG et al teach a user selecting an IoT device from a menu via an IoT app (paras 0281, 0286-288, 0299).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to combine the teachings of SMITH et al and ARNBERG et al for the purpose of provisioning a menu of IoT devices for a user to select an IoT; because it allows for the IoT devices to be listed collectively for convenient selection, which is well-known in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 2021/0280325, US 2020/0396211, US 2020/0374205.
VI. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTIE D. SHINGLES whose telephone number is (571) 272-3888. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 10am-7pm.
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.
VII. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kamal Divecha can be reached on 571-272-5863. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KRISTIE D SHINGLES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453
Prosecution Insights