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 Remarks/Arguments
This Office Action is in response to the communications for the present US application number 18/449,345 last filed on June 24th, 2026.
Claims 1 and 9 were amended.
Claims 1-15 remain pending and have been examined, directed to DEVICE, METHOD, AND COMPUTER PROGRAM FOR PERFORMING ACTIONS ON IOT DEVICES.
Upon further review of the latest claim amendments along with the applicant’s representative’s response, the examiner reviewed the applied references and respectfully disagrees and remains unpersuaded at this time.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection, using Robinson, and using amended independent claim 1 for discussion purposes, the applicant’s representative primarily argued that Robinson does not expressly disclose of the newly amended claim language directed to a newly introduced concept with checking within the server’s databases for something that’s related based on the identified IoT or endpoint device, given the provided user’s inputted action sequence.
Upon further review and given the broad scope in the amended claim language, the Examiner remains unpersuaded because Robinson does cover a similar scenario with the server responding with similar action datasets for the user to consider. More specifically, Robinson discloses wherein after a user inputs a possibly new action sequence communicated to the server and the server can treat that initially as something new. The server can check its databases and return any other action datasets that are similar to the inputted action dataset sequence, based upon a plurality of factors, including contextual and identifying information, user’s profile, historical information, parameters and/or features. All of this would read upon the current amended language that’s all still related to the initial user input for some sought after activity or function on the endpoint/IoT device. And, given the way the claimed language is structured with the OR condition along with the broad definition of those two elements (i.e., the one object can be ignored, and the definition of at least one context is broadly defined as based on the user input and user characteristic). Robinson’s system considers user profiles which would sufficiently teach of any related inputs and features and/or parameters associated with the captured input action sequence within the new dataset. And all of this can be updated within the system’s databases as the user can further confirm whether the new action dataset is associated with found similar datasets or not (e.g., Robinson: col. 7, ll. 3-11, 39-42, 55-61, col. 8, ll. 9-17, and col 9, ll. 55-66 and Figs. 1, 4, and 5).
The other independent claim 9 was similarly amended and argued following claim 1 and thus was similarly rejected under the same rationale.
The remaining dependent claims were not specifically argued at this time.
Applicant's arguments were considered but they were not found persuasive. See the following claim rejections for further clarifications with added emphasis on the points previously disclosed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. US 10,847,135 B2 to Robinson et al. (referred to hereafter as “Robinson”).
As to claim 1, Robinson further discloses a method of controlling an Internet of Things (IoT) device, by an electronic device, the method comprising:
obtaining a user input directed to controlling the IoT device (Robinson discloses of an overall system that can receive and respond to different user inputs/commands with respect to controlling one or more applications on one or more endpoint (digital assistant) devices (110, and 115s), e.g., Fig. 1 and col. 2, ll. 50-60 and col. 8, ll. 50-61 and col. 11, ll. 45 – col. 12, ll. 4);
determining whether a predefined action, which is to be performed on the IoT device, corresponding to the user input is identifiable based on a database (Robinson goes through different variations on how the system can determine if the received inputs/commands will invoke a command or action from an action dataset, stored within the database(s), whether there’s a match or if there’s some new inputs/commands, etc., e.g., col. 3, ll. 57 – col. 4, ll. 9 and col. 7, ll. 15-20);
in case that the predefined action corresponding to the user input is not identifiable, transmitting information regarding the user input to a server and tracking at least one interaction of a user with the IoT device (For a scenario that involves a new input/command in which the system wouldn’t be able to immediately identify, Robinson’s system can record/track the inputs, save, and categorize it as a new action dataset, e.g., col. 3, ll. 57 – col. 4, ll. 9, col. 5. ll. 3-7, 27-33 and 49-67, col. 7, ll. 15-20, and col. 8, ll. 15-20);
receiving, from the server, information regarding at least one activity that is mapped to at least one IoT device identified based on the user input, and information regarding at least one object or at least one context, wherein the at least one object or the at least one context is identified based on the user input and characteristics information of the user (Following the above steps and interpretations with the same scenario, Robinson’s server can check the stored action datasets and return back one or more action datasets that already exists or return back the most closely related action dataset for the user to determine and respond with, as to whether the two or more action datasets are related or not. The returned action dataset(s) would be regarding the sought after activity tied to the application feature that’s on the endpoint device(s). And, there are additional contextual information, identifying information, parameters, and/or events, all tied to the found and/or related action dataset and also tied to the user profile, e.g., col. 5, ll. 60-67, col. 6, ll. 45-49, col. 7, ll. 3-11, 39-42, 55-61, col. 8, ll. 9-17, and col 9, ll. 55-66 and Figs. 1, 4, and 5); and
updating the database based on the information regarding the at least one activity, the information regarding the at least one object or the at least one context, the at least one interaction and the user input (Following the above steps and interpretations, the server would capture and update the stored user input and feedback on whether to associate or dissociate any found and presented action datasets, backed on the requested input activity tied to the application on the endpoint device, and the contextual, identifying information, parameters, and/or events, and related to the user profile, e.g., col. 7, ll. 3-11, 39-42, 55-61, col. 8, ll. 9-17, and col 9, ll. 55-66 and Figs. 1, 4, and 5),
wherein the database comprises information regarding a matching relationship between at least one user input and at least one action (Following the above steps and interpretations, the server database can update the stored action datasets with any additional inputs from the user, regarding any newly created associated action dataset or confirm dissociations with any unintended action datasets with similar but different actions, within the server databases, e.g., col. 7, ll. 3-11, 39-42, 55-61, col. 8, ll. 9-17, and col 9, ll. 55-66 and Figs. 1, 4, and 5).
As to claim 2, Robinson further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the updating the database comprises, based on the at least one interaction, mapping any one of the at least one interaction corresponding to the user input (Following claim 1, the system can map or associate the input/commands to a template and/or an action dataset, which would then be used and directed to one or more application(s) or the one or more digital assistant device(s), e.g., col. 7, ll. 15-27 and 33-54 and col. 2, ll. 52-58).
As to claim 3, Robinson further discloses the method of claim 2, further comprising:
in case of obtaining a new user input identical to the user input after the mapping is completed, operating at least one of IoT devices according to the mapped interactions (Following claims 1 and 2, the input/commands are directed to controlling the one or more applications on the one or more digital assistant device(s), e.g., col. 7, ll. 15-27 and 33-54 and col. 2, ll. 52-58).
As to claim 4, Robinson further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the electronic device performs functionalities of a server (system server 120, e.g., Fig. 1).
As to claim 5, Robinson further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the at least one interaction comprise at least one action performed with at least one IoT device (the action can be to play some music, via a digital assistant device, e.g., col. 4, ll. 38).
As to claim 6, Robinson further discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
based on the at least one interaction, identifying a context of the user (the system can determine contextual information from a command operation, e.g., col. 9, ll. 42-66).
As to claim 7, Robinson further discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
based on the at least one interaction, providing information for suggesting an action to be performed (Similar to claim 6, in one example, the system can provide suggestions based on historical data, e.g., col. 9, ll. 42-66).
As to claim 8, Robinson further discloses a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a program for performing the method of claim 1, on a computer (e.g., col. 21, ll. 1-15).
As to claims 9-15, see the similar corresponding rejections of claims 1-7 respectively.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Xiang Yu whose telephone number is (571)270-5695. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-3:00 (PST/PDT).
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, Emmanuel Moise can be reached at (571)272-3865. 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.
/X.Y./Examiner, Art Unit 2455
/EMMANUEL L MOISE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2455
Prosecution Insights