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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 5/11/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the present application. Claims 16-20 are new claims.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 3 and 14 include the limitation of, “based on a strength of a Bluetooth low energy (BLE) communication signal between the mobile device and the each home appliance,”. The highlighted limitation is not grammatically correct and should be correct to recite, ““based on a strength of a Bluetooth low energy (BLE) communication signal between the mobile device and each home appliance,”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites: “determine whether a user exists within a first distance from at least one home appliance of the plurality of home appliances” and “based on determining that the user exists within the first distance from a first home appliance of the plurality of home appliances, determine to output a message corresponding to the message output standby request through the first home appliance”, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong One, includes determining a distance of a user to a device and determining whether or not an output of a message should be initiated without providing the act of actually sending the message which can reasonably be performed in the human mind and thus falls within the, “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 further recites, “at least one processor configured to broadcast, based on a message output standby request being received from a mobile device, the message output standby request to a plurality of home appliances via the communication interface, wherein the message output standby request includes information indicating that there is a message to be output via a home appliance,”, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, includes limitations describing the functionality of the processor configured to broadcast a message from a mobile device which just merely links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Finally, the limitations of, “at least one processor” and “a communication interface”, as generally recited represent merely generic computer components for implementing the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as analyzed under Step 2B, the additional elements merely amount to gathering a message from a device and sending the message over a network. Analyzed under Berkheimer, the act of gathering and sending data over a network has been deemed as well-understood, routine, and conventional by the courts (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “sending/receiving data over a network”).
Claims 12 and 15 are substantially similar to claim 1 and is thus rejected using the same rationale as provided above.
Dependent claims 2-3 and 13-14 include determining a user is within a first distance from a device based on the user operating the device or based on calculated distances which further provides limitations which can reasonably be performed in the human mind, thus analyzed under Step 2A Prong One, provide limitations that fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claims 3-4 and 14 further include limitations of calculating a user’s distance from a device which represent the use of mathematical calculations, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong One, include limitations which fall within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas.
Review of claims 5-11 each provided some positive recitation of transmitting the message output information to a device based on various limitations, which, if incorporated in their entirety to claims 1, 12, and 15 would help overcome the current 101 rejection.
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 1-4 and 10-18are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (US PGPUB 20160105331) in view of Hiroki (JP2016057770A).
Regarding Claims 1, 12, and 16; Han teaches; A home appliance control device comprising: a communication interface; and (Han; at least Fig. 4; paragraph [0101]; disclose a gateway (420) for communicating control messages from a portable terminal to a smart device)
at least one processor configured to broadcast, based on a message output standby request being received from a mobile device, the message output standby request to a plurality of home appliances via the communication interface, wherein the message output standby request includes information indicating that there is a message to be output via a home appliance (Han; at least Fig. 17; paragraphs [0139]-[0142]; disclose receiving a request signal (i.e. execution instruction) from a user’s portable terminal wherein the terminal then subsequently sends the received request signal to at least one network device (i.e. smart appliance) of a plurality of network devices)
determine whether a user exists within a first distance from at least one of the at least one home appliance of the plurality of home appliances, and (Han; at least Fig. 17; paragraphs [0139]-[0142]; disclose determining a user’s position information to determine a user’s location with relation to a plurality of devices)
based on determining that the user exists within the first distance from a first home appliance from among the at least one home appliance of the plurality of home appliances, determine to output a message corresponding to the message output standby request through the first home appliance. (Han; at least Fig. 17; paragraphs [0139]-[0142] and [0152]-[0154]; disclose wherein the system determines that a user’s position is adjacent to a specific network device, and subsequently controls the network device or triggers the network device to display a message based on the request signal and position information).
Han appears to be silent on; at least one processor configured to broadcast, based on a message output standby request being received from a mobile device, the message output standby request to a plurality of home appliances via the communication interface, wherein the message output standby request includes information indicating that there is a message to be output via a home appliance
However, Hiroki teaches; at least one processor configured to broadcast, based on a message output standby request being received from a mobile device, the message output standby request to a plurality of home appliances via the communication interface, wherein the message output standby request includes information indicating that there is a message to be output via a home appliance (Hiroki; at least paragraphs [0006], [0024], and [0027]-[0031]; disclose a system and method for communicating with a plurality of home appliances, wherein a group of appliances are selected to each receive a notification message in response to a detected event, and wherein the devices are set to display or audibly announce the message only when a user is within a certain distance from the devices such that the message is not provided from devices when no one is around to hear).
Han and Hiroki are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor or problem solving area of, smart appliance message control systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have incorporated the known method of sending and outputting a message from a plurality of devices only when a user is around as taught by Hiroki with the known system of a smart appliance communication and control system as taught by Han in order to provide a method in which the user is not bombarded with the same duplicate message from multiple devices as taught by Hiroki (see paragraph [0007]).
Regarding Claims 2 and 13; the combination of Han and Hiroki teach; The home appliance control device of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to determine, based on detecting an operation of the user using the first home appliance, that the user exists within the first distance from the first home appliance. (Han; at least paragraph [0141]).
Regarding Claims 3 and 14; the combination of Han and Hiroki teach; The home appliance control device of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to calculate a distance between the mobile device and each home appliance of the at least one home appliance, based on a strength of a Bluetooth low energy (BLE) communication signal between the mobile device and the each home appliance, and based on a calculated distance between the mobile device and the first home appliance being within the first distance, determine that the user exists within the first distance from the first home appliance. (Han; at least paragraphs [0139]-[0142]).
Regarding Claim 4; the combination of Han and Hiroki teach; The home appliance control device of claim 3, wherein the at least one processor is configured to, based on a distance between the mobile device and a third home appliance, the distance being calculated with respect to the third home appliance having same space information as a second home appliance and comprising a BLE communication module, calculate a distance between the mobile device and the second home appliance not comprising a BLE communication module of the at least one home appliance. (Han; at least paragraphs [0139]-[0142]).
Regarding Claim 10; the combination of Han and Hiroki teach; The home appliance control device of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to, based on receiving a first message output standby request from a first mobile device and receiving a second message output standby request from a second mobile device, obtain a distance between the first mobile device and each home appliance of the at least one home appliance, and obtain a distance between the second mobile device and each home appliance of the at least one home appliance, and when it is identified that the first mobile device and the second mobile device exist within the first distance from the first home appliance, outputting, via the first home appliance, a message corresponding to a message output standby request transmitted from a mobile device which is closer to the first home appliance from among the first mobile device and the second mobile device. (Han; at least paragraphs [0139]-[0142] and [0152]-[154]).
Regarding Claim 11; the combination of Han and Hiroki teach; The home appliance control device of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to, based on receiving selection information about a home appliance set to output a message, transmit the message output standby request to the home appliance selected from the selection information from among the at least one home appliance, and not to transmit the message output standby request to a home appliance that is not selected from the selection information. (Han; at least paragraphs [0159]-[0164]).
Regarding Claim 15; the combination of Han and Hiroki teach; A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a program for performing, on a computer, the home appliance control method of claim 12. (Han; at least paragraphs [0139]-[0142]).
Regarding Claim 17; the combination of Han and Hiroki teach; The home appliance control device of claim 16, wherein the at least one processor is configured to: control, by transmitting message output completion information indicating an output of the message corresponding to the message output standby request to other home appliances of the plurality of home appliances excluding the at least one home appliance, the other home appliances not to output the message corresponding to the message output standby request, and stop an operation of receiving the distance information from the plurality of home appliances. (Hiroki; at least paragraphs [0021]-[0024]).
Regarding Claim 18; the combination of Han and Hiroki teach; The home appliance control device of claim 16, wherein the at least one processor is configured to: based on determining that the user exists within the specific distance from at least one home appliance of the plurality of home appliances after broadcasting the message output standby request, transmit message content corresponding to the message output standby request to the at least one home appliance. (Han; at least paragraphs [0139]-[0142]).
Claims 9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (US PGPUB 20160105331) in view of Hiroki (JP2016057770A) in further view of Kim et al. (US PGPUB 20070157244).
Regarding Claims 9 and 20, the combination of Han and Hiroki teach; The home appliance control device of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to, based on the message output standby request being an urgent type, control a home appliance of the at least one home appliance that includes a speaker to output a message as an audio signal corresponding to the message output standby request. (Han; at least paragraphs [0114], [0117], and [0139]-[0142]).
The combination of Han and Baek appear to be silent on; The home appliance control device of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to, based on the message output standby request being an urgent type, control a home appliance of the at least one home appliance that includes a speaker to output a message as an audio signal corresponding to the message output standby request.
However, Kim teach; The home appliance control device of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to, based on the message output standby request being an urgent type, control a home appliance of the at least one home appliance that includes a speaker to output a message as an audio signal corresponding to the message output standby request. (Kim; at least Fig. 5; paragraphs [0053]-[0055]; disclose determining whether an incoming message is an urgent type, and outputting the urgent message to a user device based on programmed settings (i.e. the output priority as taught by Han and Hiroki)).
Han, Hiroki, and Kim are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor or problem solving area of, appliance message control systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have incorporated the known method of outputting urgent messages as taught by Kim with the known system of a smart appliance communication and control system as taught by Han and Hiroki in order to provide a method which improves a user’s convenience while still alerting them to urgent situations as taught by Kim (see paragraph [0003]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8 and 19 are 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.
Claim 5 recites: “The home appliance control device of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to broadcast the message output standby request to the at least one home appliance via the communication interface, based on determining that the mobile device is in a use state, and
receive, after broadcasting the message output standby request, distance information indicating whether a user exists within the first distance, from each of the at least one home appliance.”
The present application is directed towards improvement in smart appliance communication and control technologies. In particular, as a user’s smart phone becomes increasingly integrated with home appliances, resulting in automated actuation and annunciation of various preprogrammed situations, there exist times when a user might not wish to have an automated actuation occur such as a speaker reading a newly received message that might include sensitive information. Further, if the user is engaged in an activity on their mobile device, it might disrupt what they are doing and cause inconvenience to the user. The present application seeks to improve upon this, and specifically within the breadth of this claim by monitoring the active state of the user’s device as well as distance information prior to engaging in actuating any devices. This prevents inconvenient situations that can possibly occur while a person is engaged in a video/phone call.
The closes prior art is Han (US PGPUB 20160105331) in view of Baek (KR20110080705A). Han discloses a position based actuation and control system and method in which a user’s distance is measured based upon a desired actuation of a smart device, and in response to the user being within a proximity of a device, actuating said device. Baek, similarly discloses a system and method for providing distance based control of appliances in which a user’s distance can be measured within proximity of various smart appliance, and in response to being within a certain distance, access to control of various appliances within a zone can be controlled. However, neither include monitoring the state of the user’s device before consideration of actuation and thus are silent on, “wherein the at least one processor is configured to broadcast the message output standby request to the at least one home appliance via the communication interface, based on determining that the mobile device is in a use state, and
receive, after broadcasting the message output standby request, distance information indicating whether a user exists within the first distance, from each of the at least one home appliance.”
Dependent claims 6-8 all depend upon objected to claim 5, and thus, if incorporated into independent form with the entirety of claim 5, would thus be considered allowable.
Dependent claim 19 is substantially similar to claim 5 and if incorporated in its entirety to an independent claim would also be considered allowable based on the reasoning for claim 5 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-12, filed 5/11/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 12 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Han et al. (US PGPUB 20160105331) in view of Hiroki (JP2016057770A).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hirayama (US PGPUB 20140222234): disclose a demand response message notification system and method wherein in response to a demand response request, providing notification messages to a plurality of devices simultaneously such that a user may react and address the response.
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 CHRISTOPHER W CARTER whose telephone number is (469)295-9262. The examiner can normally be reached 9-6:30.
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 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.
/CHRISTOPHER W CARTER/Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights