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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 19th, 2025 has been entered.
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 December 19th, 2025.
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 appreciated the claim amendments that make a clear distinction on the different entities involved now, with an electronic device, an IoT and a database. After an updated search, the Examiner has found some other prior art that is comprehensive enough and discloses of all of the key features that were previously raised, with respect to how a system can handle new or unidentified “inputs” and having that “input” associated or correspond to some IoT device and having it all captured/saved/stored within the system. This would address all previous concerns about a singular concept being split across two references. Now, the concept that if an unknown or unidentified input is received, the system can treat that “input” as a new addition. As a result of the new reference being applied, and ruling out Maiya and McNamara, all other comments directed to Maiya and McNamara are now moot.
The independent claims 1 and 9 were similarly amended and thus were similarly rejected under the same rationale with the updated prior art.
The remaining dependent claims were not specifically argued at this time.
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 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 identify, Robinson’s system can record the inputs and save and categorize it as a new action dataset, e.g., col. 3, ll. 57 – col. 4, ll. 9 and col. 7, ll. 15-20, and col. 8, ll. 15-20); and
updating the database based on the at least one interaction and the user input, 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 example(s), Robinson’s system would store the newly created/defined action datasets within the server databases, e.g., col. 3, ll. 57 – col. 4, ll. 9 and col. 7, ll. 15-20, and col. 8, ll. 15-30 and Fig. 1).
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
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.
/Xiang Yu/Examiner, Art Unit 2455