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
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 5 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 § 103
II. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
III. CLAIMS 1-9 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over KIM et al (US 2016/0226732) in view of YI et al (US 2019/0089787).
a. Per claim 1, KIM et al teach an electronic device comprising:
a display (paras 0003-6, 0600—display);
a communication module comprising communication circuitry (paras 0295-300, 0303-306—communication module);
memory storing instructions (paras 0085, 0117, 0159-160—memory); and
at least one processor comprising processing circuitry and operatively connected to the display, the communication module, and the memory (paras 0005-6, 0013, 0163—processor, display and memory), wherein the at least one processor, individually and/or collectively, is configured to:
receive, from an external electronic device, first Internet of things (IoT) control information comprising device information and operation information for at least one external IoT device included in a first IoT network through the communication module (paras 0095, 0224, 0238-241, 0293-294, 0303—receiving first IoT device type and control information comprising operation status data for at least one IoT device in the network through a communication interface);
identify IoT devices connected in a second IoT network including the electronic device (paras 0024, 0095, 0116-118, 0207—identifying first and second network IDs, transmitting meta-information of the network device to a second network device).
KIM et al teach the claim limitations, as applied above, along with determining, among the identified IoT devices connected to the second network, at least one IoT device based on the meta-information and control information (paras 0024, 0095, 0116-118, 0207, 0265, 0593); and generating second IoT control information comprising meta-information, capabilities and device operation status information for the determined at least one IoT device (paras 0009-25, 0095, 0097-98, 0116-118, 0294). However, KIM et al fail to explicitly teach the limitations to “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; 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”.
YI et al teach among the identified IoT devices connected to the second IoT network, determining IoT device information associated with the first IoT control information (paras 0072-74), generating second IoT control information comprising device information (paras 0020, 0119, 0145) and performing standards conversion to provide multi-standard connectivity, enabling IoT device using different communication protocols (para 0082). 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 KIM et al and YI et al for the purpose of provisioning IoT device and control information to generate second IoT information by converting first IoT control information based on the user environment; because it which is well-known in the art to enable multiple IoT device using different protocol to communicate.
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, KIM et al and YI et al teach the electronic device of claim 1, KIM et al further teach 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 (paras 0099, 0192, 0273, 0278, 0282, 0430, 0564, 0572—designation of primary gateway, configuring primary mode of a network device and secondary mode the device based on device status settings and sub-menu, primary and secondary functionalities).
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, KIM et al and YI et al teach the electronic device of claim 2, KIM et al further teach 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 0099, 0195, 0273, 0278, 0633, 0677—providing location information for the networked IoT devices configured to be in primary mode and secondary mode; YI et al: paras 0088-90, 0109, 0115-116—IoT devices located at a distance from infrastructure to connect to another IoT device, identifying IoT device in fixed locations).
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, KIM et al and YI et al teach the electronic device of claim 1, KIM et al further teach 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 0224, 0238, 0240-241, 0363, 0371, 0546—device type information included for the network devices; YI et al: paras 0087, 0092—types of IoT devices).
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, KIM et al and YI et al teach the electronic device of claim 4, KIM et al further teach 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 0567, 0594, 0711-712, 0716-720, 0727—device using a control capability outside of the primary control capabilities based on identified control settings which are adjustable; YI et al: para 0069—device capability dependent upon intended use; para 0082—conversion to provide multi-standard connectivity, enabling IoT device using different communication protocols).
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, KIM et al and YI et al teach the electronic device of claim 1, KIM et al further teach 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 0280, 0579, 0642, 0688—storage of historical and user pattern data associated with the network device).
g. Per claim 7, KIM et al and YI et al teach the electronic device of claim 1, KIM et al further teach 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 0224, 0238, 0240-241, 0280-281, 0363, 0371, 0500, 0546, 0573, 0579-580—device type information included for the network devices, messaging and determining text notification; YI et al: paras 0070, 0090—configuring and reconfiguring to enable IoT devices to practice all or selected operations).
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, KIM et al and YI et al teach the electronic device of claim 1, KIM et al further teach 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 0274, 0431, 0573, 0634, 0678—pre-configuring and registering an IoT device to the network executable through an application).
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, KIM et al and YI et al teach the electronic device of claim 8, KIM et al further teach 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 0096, 0110, 0205-206, 0228, 0274, 0368, 0431, 0573, 0581, 0634, 0678—discovering and registering an IoT device to a different network through the gateway device).
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, KIM et al and YI et al teach the electronic device of claim 1, KIM et al further teach 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 0016, 0135, 0144, 0146, 0286—providing notifications related to the devices for display via the graphical interface).
k. Per claim 12, KIM et al and YI et al teach the electronic device of claim 1, KIM et al 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, 0024, 0094-95, 0126, 0539, 0589—transmitting information associated with a device using a cloud server of a cloud network; YI et al: paras 0012, 0021, 0028-30, 0032—cloud server for supporting an IoT gateway of an IoT network to couple a plurality of IoT devices).
IV. CLAIM 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over KIM et al (US 2016/0226732) in view of YI et al (US 2019/0089787) and ARNBERG et al (US 2020/0092701).
Per claim 10, KIM et al and YI et al teach the electronic device of claim 1, as applied above. KIM et al further teach the device displaying networked devices via the graphical interface and menu (para 0282), 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 KIM et al and YI et al 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
V. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 2019/0037639, US 2021/0280325.
VI. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS 1ACTION 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.
VII. 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.
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