DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application and claims 1-20 are rejected.
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
It is noted that claim 20 is amended improperly without using underlines for some of added limitations.
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 11, 12, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheckelhoff et al. (US20230315423, Scheckelhoff hereinafter) in view of Schofield et al. (US20150160635, Schofield hereinafter) and Wang et al. (US20150178061, Wang hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Scheckelhoff teaches: A method of operating a system of domestic appliances, the system comprising at least one network connected appliance, the method comprising: determining that a software update is available for the at least one network connected appliance (see Scheckelhoff et al., paragraph [0008], “In accordance with another exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure, a method of operating a group of household appliances is provided. The method includes connecting, by a primary household appliance of the group of household appliances, to a remote computing device. The method also includes determining, by the remote computing device, that a secondary household appliance of the group of household appliances has an available update and providing, on the primary household appliance, a notification of the available update for the secondary household appliance.”); (see Scheckelhoff et al., paragraph [0008]); and (see Scheckelhoff et al., paragraph [0008]);
Scheckelhoff does not appear to distinctly disclose: determining a prioritized list of notification delivery manners for alerting
However, Schofield teaches: determining a prioritized list of notification delivery manners for alerting (see Schofield et al., paragraph [0013], “Multiple communication paths may be tried by the host system in order to communicate with the one or more users. For instance, push notifications, iMessages, simple message service (SMS) text messages, emails, voice messages, and posts to social media may be used by the home automation host server to communicate with a user. Such communication paths may be ranked (or tiered) by a user based on the user's preference or the preference of a user configuring a home automation rule that triggers transmission of the notification. When a notification is to be sent to the user, the home automation host system may first try the user's highest ranked communication path. The home automation host system may then monitor for a receipt response for a predefined period of time, such as two minutes. If no response is received, the next highest ranked communication path may be used to resend the notification.”); and initiating a responsive action in response to determining the prioritized list of notification delivery manners, wherein initiating the responsive action comprises emitting a notification via a most optimal delivery manner of the prioritized list of notification delivery manners (see Schofield et al., paragraph [0013]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a system of managing household appliance as taught by Scheckelhoff to include a prioritized list of notification methods and trying multiple notification methods as taught by Schofield for the result of successfully notifying the user of an available update.
Scheckelhoff as modified does not appear to distinctly disclose: wherein the notification delivery manners include at least one interactive delivery manner having selectable options to install
However, Wang teaches: wherein the notification delivery manners include at least one interactive delivery manner having selectable options to install the software update (see Wang et al., paragraph [0052], “…The `Update Notification` alert may also include selectable option, such as "Install Now," "Install Later," and "No Thanks" buttons.”), (see Wang et al., paragraph [0028], “…Examples of a connected device 101 may include, without limitation… phones… appliances, home appliances, refrigerators, etc.”); and receiving an input responsive to the notification to control an operation of the at least one network connected appliance including processing the software update (see Wang et al., paragraph [0064], “The extended interface application 210 then receives 306 an input from the user 350 via the user interface 216 or web portal. The input may indicate the selection of "Install Now" (accept) and "Install Later" (defer) by the user 350. The extended interface application 210 processes the input to generate a response indication that reflects the selection by the user 350. The extended interface application 210 then sends 307 the response indication to the cloud device 130, which in turn forwards 308 the response indication to the connected device 101...”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a system of managing household appliance as taught by Scheckelhoff, to include an interactive notification delivery manner and receiving user input to control an operation as taught by Wang, for the result of successfully installing a software update at an appropriate time for the user.
Regarding claim 2, Scheckelhoff does not appear to distinctly disclose: wherein the prioritized list of delivery manners comprises at least two of an appliance display, a text message, a phone application (app) push notification, an email, or an audio alert.
However, Schofield teaches: wherein the prioritized list of delivery manners comprises at least two of an appliance display, a text message, a phone application (app) push notification, an email, or an audio alert (see Schofield et al., paragraph [0013], “…For instance, push notifications, iMessages, simple message service (SMS) text messages, emails, voice messages, and posts to social media may be used by the home automation host server to communicate with a user. Such communication paths may be ranked (or tiered) by a user based on the user's preference or the preference of a user configuring a home automation rule that triggers transmission of the notification.”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a system of managing household appliance as taught by Scheckelhoff to include a prioritized list of multiple notification methods as taught by Schofield for the result of successfully notifying the user of an available update.
Regarding claim 3, Scheckelhoff does not appear to distinctly disclose: determining that the most optimal delivery manner of the prioritized list of notification delivery manners is an interactive manner; and emitting the notification via a second-most optimal delivery manner of the prioritized list of notification delivery manners in addition to the most optimal delivery manner.
However, Schofield teaches: determining that the most optimal delivery manner of the prioritized list of notification delivery manners is an interactive manner (see Schofield et al., paragraph [0013], “…For instance, push notifications, iMessages, simple message service (SMS) text messages, emails, voice messages, and posts to social media may be used by the home automation host server to communicate with a user. Such communication paths may be ranked (or tiered) by a user based on the user's preference or the preference of a user configuring a home automation rule that triggers transmission of the notification. When a notification is to be sent to the user, the home automation host system may first try the user's highest ranked communication path. The home automation host system may then monitor for a receipt response for a predefined period of time, such as two minutes. If no response is received, the next highest ranked communication path may be used to resend the notification.”); and emitting the notification via a second-most optimal delivery manner of the prioritized list of notification delivery manners in addition to the most optimal delivery manner (see Schofield et al., paragraph [0013]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a system of managing household appliance as taught by Scheckelhoff to include an interactive notification delivery manner and trying multiple notification delivery methods as taught by Schofield for the result of successfully notifying the user of an available update.
Regarding claim 4, Scheckelhoff does not appear to distinctly disclose: determining that the notification has not been acknowledged within a predetermined time limit after emitting the notification via the most optimal delivery manner; and emitting the notification via one or more lower priority delivery manners after determining that the notification has not been acknowledged.
However, Schofield teaches: determining that the notification has not been acknowledged within a predetermined time limit after emitting the notification via the most optimal delivery manner (see Schofield et al., paragraph [0013], “…When a notification is to be sent to the user, the home automation host system may first try the user's highest ranked communication path. The home automation host system may then monitor for a receipt response for a predefined period of time, such as two minutes. If no response is received, the next highest ranked communication path may be used to resend the notification.”); and emitting the notification via one or more lower priority delivery manners after determining that the notification has not been acknowledged (see Schofield et al., paragraph [0013]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a system of managing household appliance as taught by Scheckelhoff to include a time limit for acknowledging delivered notifications and trying multiple notification delivery methods as taught by Schofield for the result of successfully notifying the user of an available update.
Regarding claim 11, Scheckelhoff teaches: A computing system for emitting software update notifications (see Scheckelhoff et al., paragraph [0007], “…The method further includes determining that a secondary household appliance of the group of household appliances has an available update and providing, on the primary household appliance, a notification of the available update for the secondary household appliance.”); the computing system comprising: at least one network connected appliance (see Scheckelhoff et al., paragraph [0007]); one or more processors in communication with the at least one network connected appliance (see Scheckelhoff et al., paragraph [0026], “…Each controller 210 may include a memory and one or more microprocessors, CPUs or the like, such as general or special purpose microprocessors operable to execute programming instructions or micro-control code associated with operation of the appliance 10 or 11…”); and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media that collectively store instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to perform operations (see Scheckelhoff et al., paragraph [0046], “…The controller 210 may be programmed to operate dryer appliance 10 by executing instructions stored in memory (e.g., non-transitory media)…”); the operations comprising: determining that a software update is available for the at least one network connected appliance (see Scheckelhoff et al., paragraph [0008], “In accordance with another exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure, a method of operating a group of household appliances is provided. The method includes connecting, by a primary household appliance of the group of household appliances, to a remote computing device. The method also includes determining, by the remote computing device, that a secondary household appliance of the group of household appliances has an available update and providing, on the primary household appliance, a notification of the available update for the secondary household appliance.”); and (see Scheckelhoff et al., paragraph [0008]);
Scheckelhoff does not appear to distinctly disclose: determining a prioritized list of notification delivery manners for alerting
However, Schofield teaches: determining a prioritized list of notification delivery manners for alerting (see Schofield et al., paragraph [0013], “Multiple communication paths may be tried by the host system in order to communicate with the one or more users. For instance, push notifications, iMessages, simple message service (SMS) text messages, emails, voice messages, and posts to social media may be used by the home automation host server to communicate with a user. Such communication paths may be ranked (or tiered) by a user based on the user's preference or the preference of a user configuring a home automation rule that triggers transmission of the notification. When a notification is to be sent to the user, the home automation host system may first try the user's highest ranked communication path. The home automation host system may then monitor for a receipt response for a predefined period of time, such as two minutes. If no response is received, the next highest ranked communication path may be used to resend the notification.”); and initiating a responsive action in response to determining the prioritized list of notification delivery manners, wherein initiating the responsive action comprises emitting a notification via a most optimal delivery manner of the prioritized list of notification delivery manners (see Schofield et al., paragraph [0013]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a system of managing household appliance as taught by Scheckelhoff to include a prioritized list of notification methods and trying multiple notification methods as taught by Schofield for the result of successfully notifying the user of an available update.
Scheckelhoff as modified does not appear to distinctly disclose: wherein the notification delivery manners include at least one interactive delivery manner having selectable options to install the software update; and receiving an input responsive to the notification to control an operation of the at least one network connected appliance including processing the software update.
However, Wang teaches: wherein the notification delivery manners include at least one interactive delivery manner having selectable options to install the software update (see Wang et al., paragraph [0052], “…The `Update Notification` alert may also include selectable option, such as "Install Now," "Install Later," and "No Thanks" buttons.”), (see Wang et al., paragraph [0028], “…Examples of a connected device 101 may include, without limitation… phones… appliances, home appliances, refrigerators, etc.”); and receiving an input responsive to the notification to control an operation of the at least one network connected appliance including processing the software update (see Wang et al., paragraph [0064], “The extended interface application 210 then receives 306 an input from the user 350 via the user interface 216 or web portal. The input may indicate the selection of "Install Now" (accept) and "Install Later" (defer) by the user 350. The extended interface application 210 processes the input to generate a response indication that reflects the selection by the user 350. The extended interface application 210 then sends 307 the response indication to the cloud device 130, which in turn forwards 308 the response indication to the connected device 101...”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a system of managing household appliance as taught by Scheckelhoff, to include an interactive notification delivery manner and receiving user input to control an operation as taught by Wang, for the result of successfully installing a software update at an appropriate time for the user.
Regarding claim 12, Scheckelhoff does not appear to distinctly disclose: wherein the prioritized list of delivery manners comprises at least two of an appliance display, a text message, a phone application (app) push notification, an email, or an audio alert.
However, Schofield teaches: wherein the prioritized list of delivery manners comprises at least two of an appliance display, a text message, a phone application (app) push notification, an email, or an audio alert (see Schofield et al., paragraph [0013], “…For instance, push notifications, iMessages, simple message service (SMS) text messages, emails, voice messages, and posts to social media may be used by the home automation host server to communicate with a user. Such communication paths may be ranked (or tiered) by a user based on the user's preference or the preference of a user configuring a home automation rule that triggers transmission of the notification.”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a system of managing household appliance as taught by Scheckelhoff to include a prioritized list of multiple notification methods as taught by Schofield for the result of successfully notifying the user of an available update.
Regarding claim 13, Scheckelhoff does not appear to distinctly disclose: determining that the most optimal delivery manner of the prioritized list of notification delivery manners is an interactive manner; and emitting the notification via a second-most optimal delivery manner of the prioritized list of notification delivery manners in addition to the most optimal delivery manner.
However, Schofield teaches: determining that the most optimal delivery manner of the prioritized list of notification delivery manners is an interactive manner (see Schofield et al., paragraph [0013], “…For instance, push notifications, iMessages, simple message service (SMS) text messages, emails, voice messages, and posts to social media may be used by the home automation host server to communicate with a user. Such communication paths may be ranked (or tiered) by a user based on the user's preference or the preference of a user configuring a home automation rule that triggers transmission of the notification. When a notification is to be sent to the user, the home automation host system may first try the user's highest ranked communication path. The home automation host system may then monitor for a receipt response for a predefined period of time, such as two minutes. If no response is received, the next highest ranked communication path may be used to resend the notification.”); and emitting the notification via a second-most optimal delivery manner of the prioritized list of notification delivery manners in addition to the most optimal delivery manner (see Schofield et al., paragraph [0013]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a system of managing household appliance as taught by Scheckelhoff to include an interactive notification delivery manner and trying multiple notification delivery methods as taught by Schofield for the result of successfully notifying the user of an available update.
Regarding claim 14, Scheckelhoff does not appear to distinctly disclose: determining that the notification has not been acknowledged within a predetermined time limit after emitting the notification via the most optimal delivery manner; and emitting the notification via one or more lower priority delivery manners after determining that the notification has not been acknowledged.
However, Schofield teaches: determining that the notification has not been acknowledged within a predetermined time limit after emitting the notification via the most optimal delivery manner (see Schofield et al., paragraph [0013], “…When a notification is to be sent to the user, the home automation host system may first try the user's highest ranked communication path. The home automation host system may then monitor for a receipt response for a predefined period of time, such as two minutes. If no response is received, the next highest ranked communication path may be used to resend the notification.”); and emitting the notification via one or more lower priority delivery manners after determining that the notification has not been acknowledged (see Schofield et al., paragraph [0013]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a system of managing household appliance as taught by Scheckelhoff to include a time limit for acknowledging delivered notifications and trying multiple notification delivery methods as taught by Schofield for the result of successfully notifying the user of an available update.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheckelhoff, Schofield, and Wang, as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Helvick (US20070192763) and Faynberg et al. (US20190215755, Faynberg hereinafter).
Regarding claim 5, Scheckelhoff teaches: (see Scheckelhoff et al., paragraph [0008], “In accordance with another exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure, a method of operating a group of household appliances is provided. The method includes connecting, by a primary household appliance of the group of household appliances, to a remote computing device. The method also includes determining, by the remote computing device, that a secondary household appliance of the group of household appliances has an available update and providing, on the primary household appliance, a notification of the available update for the secondary household appliance.”); (see Scheckelhoff et al., paragraph [0008]);
Scheckelhoff does not appear to distinctly disclose: determining a usage pattern
However, Helvick teaches: determining a usage pattern (see Helvick paragraph [0026], “Referring now to FIG. 5, a flow diagram shows operation of mobile electronic device 200 in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention. Update scheduler 330 detects a software update event, for example, detects information concerning an impending software update download from a software update server (510) and determines one or more proposed times for application of the software update based on device usage (520)”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a system of managing household appliance as taught by Scheckelhoff to include a usage pattern as taught by Helvick for the result of successfully installing a software update at an appropriate time for the user.
Scheckelhoff does not appear to distinctly disclose: the usage pattern comprising a peak usage time
However, Faynberg teaches: the usage pattern comprising a peak usage time (see Faynberg et al. paragraph(s) [0058], “In the exemplary embodiment, the database of devices 435 stores the current location of each device 405, statistical information associated with the quality of service (QoS), bandwidth used by the device 405 (currently and average over a defined time period), lists of other networks 410 as well as associated costs, and statistics related to the computational power being used (i.e., the current use, average use overtime, peak usage times and locations, etc.)…”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a system of managing household appliance as taught by Scheckelhoff to include a peak usage time as taught by Faynberg for the result of successfully installing a software update at an appropriate time for the user.
Regarding claim 15, Scheckelhoff teaches: (see Scheckelhoff et al., paragraph [0008], “In accordance with another exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure, a method of operating a group of household appliances is provided. The method includes connecting, by a primary household appliance of the group of household appliances, to a remote computing device. The method also includes determining, by the remote computing device, that a secondary household appliance of the group of household appliances has an available update and providing, on the primary household appliance, a notification of the available update for the secondary household appliance.”); (see Scheckelhoff et al., paragraph [0008]);
Scheckelhoff does not appear to distinctly disclose: determining a usage pattern
However, Helvick teaches: determining a usage pattern (see Helvick paragraph [0026], “Referring now to FIG. 5, a flow diagram shows operation of mobile electronic device 200 in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention. Update scheduler 330 detects a software update event, for example, detects information concerning an impending software update download from a software update server (510) and determines one or more proposed times for application of the software update based on device usage (520)”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a system of managing household appliance as taught by Scheckelhoff to include a usage pattern as taught by Helvick for the result of successfully installing a software update at an appropriate time for the user.
Scheckelhoff does not appear to distinctly disclose: the usage pattern comprising a peak usage time
However, Faynberg teaches: the usage pattern comprising a peak usage time (see Faynberg et al. paragraph(s) [0058], “In the exemplary embodiment, the database of devices 435 stores the current location of each device 405, statistical information associated with the quality of service (QoS), bandwidth used by the device 405 (currently and average over a defined time period), lists of other networks 410 as well as associated costs, and statistics related to the computational power being used (i.e., the current use, average use overtime, peak usage times and locations, etc.)…”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a system of managing household appliance as taught by Scheckelhoff to include a peak usage time as taught by Faynberg for the result of successfully installing a software update at an appropriate time for the user.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheckelhoff, Schofield, Wang, Helvick, and Faynberg, as applied to claims 5 and 15 above, and further in view of Tseng (US20120166530).
Regarding claim 6, Scheckelhoff teaches: (see Scheckelhoff et al., paragraph [0008], “In accordance with another exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure, a method of operating a group of household appliances is provided. The method includes connecting, by a primary household appliance of the group of household appliances, to a remote computing device. The method also includes determining, by the remote computing device, that a secondary household appliance of the group of household appliances has an available update and providing, on the primary household appliance, a notification of the available update for the secondary household appliance.”);
Scheckelhoff does not appear to distinctly disclose: determining a pattern of notification acknowledgement
However, Tseng teaches: determining a pattern of notification (see Tseng, paragraph [0072], “The social networking system 130 may identify a time pattern characteristic from user engagement with notifications. The time pattern characteristic is indicative of time periods in which the user of device 100 interacts with notifications of content objects and time periods in which the user dismisses the notifications. For example, the social networking system 130 identifies a time pattern indicating that the user often interacts with notifications provided between the hours of 12 PM and 1 PM and from the hours of 7 PM and 10 PM. The social networking system 130 may recognize that all notifications provided outside of these time periods are dismissed by the user.”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a system of managing household appliance as taught by Scheckelhoff to include a pattern of notification acknowledgement as taught by Tseng for the result of optimizing the delivery of future notifications.
Regarding claim 16, Scheckelhoff teaches: (see Scheckelhoff et al., paragraph [0008], “In accordance with another exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure, a method of operating a group of household appliances is provided. The method includes connecting, by a primary household appliance of the group of household appliances, to a remote computing device. The method also includes determining, by the remote computing device, that a secondary household appliance of the group of household appliances has an available update and providing, on the primary household appliance, a notification of the available update for the secondary household appliance.”);
Scheckelhoff does not appear to distinctly disclose: determining a pattern of notification acknowledgement
However, Tseng teaches: determining a pattern of notification (see Tseng, paragraph [0072], “The social networking system 130 may identify a time pattern characteristic from user engagement with notifications. The time pattern characteristic is indicative of time periods in which the user of device 100 interacts with notifications of content objects and time periods in which the user dismisses the notifications. For example, the social networking system 130 identifies a time pattern indicating that the user often interacts with notifications provided between the hours of 12 PM and 1 PM and from the hours of 7 PM and 10 PM. The social networking system 130 may recognize that all notifications provided outside of these time periods are dismissed by the user.”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a system of managing household appliance as taught by Scheckelhoff to include a pattern of notification acknowledgement as taught by Tseng for the result of optimizing the delivery of future notifications.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheckelhoff, Schofield, Wang, Helvick, and Faynberg, as applied to claims 5 and 15 above, and further in view of Han (US20210115612).
Regarding claim 7, Scheckelhoff does not appear to distinctly disclose: receiving user feedback with respect to delivered notifications.
However, Han teaches: receiving user feedback with respect to delivered notifications (see Han paragraph [0043], “FIG. 4 is a diagram schematically illustrating an example of a notification transmitter and a notification receiver in the washing machine according to one embodiment of the present disclosure. The washing machine 1000 according to this embodiment may include a notification transmitter 501 configured to remotely transmit notification information on the scent concentration sensed by the concentration sensor 100 and a notification receiver 503 configured to receive feedback information of the user (remotely located) in response to the notification information.”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a system of managing household appliance as taught by Scheckelhoff to include user feedback as taught by Han for the result of optimizing the delivery of future notifications.
Regarding claim 17, Scheckelhoff does not appear to distinctly disclose: receiving user feedback with respect to delivered notifications.
However, Han teaches: receiving user feedback with respect to delivered notifications (see Han paragraph [0043], “FIG. 4 is a diagram schematically illustrating an example of a notification transmitter and a notification receiver in the washing machine according to one embodiment of the present disclosure. The washing machine 1000 according to this embodiment may include a notification transmitter 501 configured to remotely transmit notification information on the scent concentration sensed by the concentration sensor 100 and a notification receiver 503 configured to receive feedback information of the user (remotely located) in response to the notification information.”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a system of managing household appliance as taught by Scheckelhoff to include user feedback as taught by Han for the result of optimizing the delivery of future notifications.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheckelhoff, Schofield, Wang, Helvick, Faynberg, and Han, as applied to claims 7 and 17 above, and further in view of Tseng (US20120166530).
Regarding claim 8, Scheckelhoff does not appear to distinctly disclose: determining a time of day at which the delivered notification is acknowledged.
However, Tseng teaches: determining a time of day at which the delivered notification is acknowledged (see Tseng, paragraph [0072], “The social networking system 130 may identify a time pattern characteristic from user engagement with notifications. The time pattern characteristic is indicative of time periods in which the user of device 100 interacts with notifications of content objects and time periods in which the user dismisses the notifications. For example, the social networking system 130 identifies a time pattern indicating that the user often interacts with notifications provided between the hours of 12 PM and 1 PM and from the hours of 7 PM and 10 PM. The social networking system 130 may recognize that all notifications provided outside of these time periods are dismissed by the user.”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a system of managing household appliance as taught by Scheckelhoff to include a time of notification acknowledgment as taught by Tseng for the result of optimizing the delivery of future notifications.
Regarding claim 18, Scheckelhoff does not appear to distinctly disclose: determining a time of day at which the delivered notification is acknowledged.
However, Tseng teaches: determining a time of day at which the delivered notification is acknowledged (see Tseng, paragraph [0072], “The social networking system 130 may identify a time pattern characteristic from user engagement with notifications. The time pattern characteristic is indicative of time periods in which the user of device 100 interacts with notifications of content objects and time periods in which the user dismisses the notifications. For example, the social networking system 130 identifies a time pattern indicating that the user often interacts with notifications provided between the hours of 12 PM and 1 PM and from the hours of 7 PM and 10 PM. The social networking system 130 may recognize that all notifications provided outside of these time periods are dismissed by the user.”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a system of managing household appliance as taught by Scheckelhoff to include a time of notification acknowledgment as taught by Tseng for the result of optimizing the delivery of future notifications.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheckelhoff, Schofield, and Wang, as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Gupta et al. (US20150006296, Gupta hereinafter).
Regarding claim 10, Scheckelhoff teaches: wherein the at least one network connected appliance comprises: a first network connected appliance; and a second network connected appliance (see Scheckelhoff et al., paragraph [0068], “…The primary household appliance 10 and the secondary household appliances 11 may be matched in wireless communication, e.g., connected to the same wireless network…”); (see Scheckelhoff et al., paragraph [0068]); (see Scheckelhoff et al., paragraph [0068]);
Scheckelhoff does not appear to distinctly disclose: receiving an input signal to accept the notification on
However, Gupta teaches: wherein the method further comprises: receiving an input signal to accept the notification on (see Gupta et al., paragraph [0028], “FIG. 15 illustrates a process of auto-dismissing a notification message in response to a manual dismissal of the notification message on a different consumer IoT device”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a system of managing household appliance as taught by Scheckelhoff, to include the include auto-dismissal of secondary notifications as taught by Gupta, for the result of more efficiently delivering notifications.
Regarding claim 20, Scheckelhoff teaches: wherein the at least one network connected appliance comprises: a first network connected appliance; and a second network connected appliance (see Scheckelhoff et al., paragraph [0068], “…The primary household appliance 10 and the secondary household appliances 11 may be matched in wireless communication, e.g., connected to the same wireless network…”); (see Scheckelhoff et al., paragraph [0068]); (see Scheckelhoff et al., paragraph [0068]);
Scheckelhoff does not appear to distinctly disclose: receiving an input signal to accept the notification on
However, Gupta teaches: wherein the method further comprises: receiving an input signal to accept the notification on notification from (see Gupta et al., paragraph [0028], “FIG. 15 illustrates a process of auto-dismissing a notification message in response to a manual dismissal of the notification message on a different consumer IoT device”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a system of managing household appliance as taught by Scheckelhoff, to include the include auto-dismissal of secondary notifications as taught by Gupta, for the result of more efficiently delivering notifications.
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheckelhoff, Schofield, and Wang, as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Mathen et al. (US11354219, Mathen hereinafter) and Kodaka (WO2013076798).
Regarding claim 21, Scheckelhoff teaches: (see Scheckelhoff et al., paragraph [0008], “In accordance with another exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure, a method of operating a group of household appliances is provided. The method includes connecting, by a primary household appliance of the group of household appliances, to a remote computing device. The method also includes determining, by the remote computing device, that a secondary household appliance of the group of household appliances has an available update and providing, on the primary household appliance, a notification of the available update for the secondary household appliance.”);
Scheckelhoff does not appear to distinctly disclose: predicting, via machine-learning,
However, Mathen teaches: predicting, via machine-learning, failure (see Mathen et al., col 3 line 35, “…a trained machine learning component can correlate these irregularities to predict defects downstream. For example, a machine learning component can be trained with the heterogeneous system behavior over past patches or updates (e.g., the processed and sequenced log files). The trained machine learning component can then identify patterns where an irregularity generates a defect downstream. For example, the historic data can show that in some configurations of heterogeneous enterprise systems, a first irregularity caused by patching or updating a first module can generate a first defect in a second module, while in other configuration of heterogeneous enterprise systems the first irregularity caused by updating or patching the first module can generate a second defect in a third module. Thus, the irregularities can be correlated to predict defects that are specific to the configuration of the heterogeneous enterprise systems…”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a system of managing household appliance as taught by Scheckelhoff, to include the prediction of a failure using machine-learning as taught by Mathen, for the result of preemptively handling failures before they occur.
Scheckelhoff as modified does not appear to distinctly disclose: determining whether the software update is available to prevent the failure.
However, Kodaka teaches: determining whether the software update is available to prevent the failure (see Kodaka, page 14 paragraph 5, “…when a new failure becomes apparent, the management server registers the patch 42 and patch information for preventing the occurrence of the failure…”), (see Kodaka, page 10 paragraph 2, “…The notification / addition processing is performed by notifying the user of a patch number (patch ID or the like) that there is a patch for preventing the occurrence of a failure.”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a system of managing household appliance as taught by Scheckelhoff, to include a software update to prevent the failure as taught by Kodaka, for the result of preemptively handling failures before they occur.
Regarding claim 22, Scheckelhoff teaches: (see Scheckelhoff et al., paragraph [0008], “In accordance with another exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure, a method of operating a group of household appliances is provided. The method includes connecting, by a primary household appliance of the group of household appliances, to a remote computing device. The method also includes determining, by the remote computing device, that a secondary household appliance of the group of household appliances has an available update and providing, on the primary household appliance, a notification of the available update for the secondary household appliance.”);
Scheckelhoff does not appear to distinctly disclose: predicting, via machine-learning,
However, Mathen teaches: predicting, via machine-learning, failure (see Mathen et al., col 3 line 35, “…a trained machine learning component can correlate these irregularities to predict defects downstream. For example, a machine learning component can be trained with the heterogeneous system behavior over past patches or updates (e.g., the processed and sequenced log files). The trained machine learning component can then identify patterns where an irregularity generates a defect downstream. For example, the historic data can show that in some configurations of heterogeneous enterprise systems, a first irregularity caused by patching or updating a first module can generate a first defect in a second module, while in other configuration of heterogeneous enterprise systems the first irregularity caused by updating or patching the first module can generate a second defect in a third module. Thus, the irregularities can be correlated to predict defects that are specific to the configuration of the heterogeneous enterprise systems…”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a system of managing household appliance as taught by Scheckelhoff, to include the prediction of a failure using machine-learning as taught by Mathen, for the result of preemptively handling failures before they occur.
Scheckelhoff as modified does not appear to distinctly disclose: determining whether the software update is available to prevent the failure.
However, Kodaka teaches: determining whether the software update is available to prevent the failure (see Kodaka, page 14 paragraph 5, “…when a new failure becomes apparent, the management server registers the patch 42 and patch information for preventing the occurrence of the failure…”), (see Kodaka, page 10 paragraph 2, “…The notification / addition processing is performed by notifying the user of a patch number (patch ID or the like) that there is a patch for preventing the occurrence of a failure.”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a system of managing household appliance as taught by Scheckelhoff, to include a software update to prevent the failure as taught by Kodaka, for the result of preemptively handling failures before they occur.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's argument: Prior art of reference does not teach newly amended claims 1 and 11.
Examiner’s response: Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 11 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.
Applicant's argument: Newly amended claims overcome the 101 rejection.
Examiner’s response: Applicant’s argument is persuasive and the 101 rejection is withdrawn.
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 Joshua Tran whose telephone number is (571)272-5460. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hyung Sough can be reached on (571)272-6799. 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.
/JOSHUA TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2192
/S. SOUGH/SPE, Art Unit 2192