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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite “training a machine learning model using a captured event log history, a device exception list ... a manual classification of IoT device interactions”. Paragraph [0045] recites that training of the machine learning model involves “The RNN can be trained using training data that can be uploaded to the program 200, such as on manual classifications of device interactions. Manual classification of device interactions may comprise IoT device interactions, such as an individual increasing the volume on a TV, changing the channel of the TV, turning on a fan, dimming a light, etc. Additionally, the RNN can be trained on data comprising a steady state of no individual interaction, or standard behavior of the IoT event logs.” Nowhere in the specification is it mentioned that the device exception list is used in training of the machine learning model. New matter has been added.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite “upon determining that the individual entered the new area of the indoor location, analyzing, by the trained machine learning model, a current micro-location of the individual and based on the analyzing”. Fig. 2 and paragraphs [0044-45] recite “The program 200 can use the trained RNN to dynamically process the captured data from devices 114, and 123, and to dynamically analyze the individual's current micro-location, the individual's interaction history, and the individual’s device exception list, to determine if the flow of electricity to one or more devices 114 in the indoor location may be turned on or turned off.”. The specification requires all three of the current micro-location, the individual’s device exception list, and the individual’s device interaction history are required to be analyzed to determine the result. New matter has been added.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant regards as the invention. Evidence that claims 1, 8, and 15 fail(s) to correspond in scope with that which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA applications the applicant regards as the invention can be found in the reply filed 07/20/2026. In that paper, the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA applications the applicant has stated, in paragraphs [0044-45], ““The program 200 can use the trained RNN to dynamically process the captured data from devices 114, and 123, and to dynamically analyze the individual's current micro-location, the individual's interaction history, and the individual’s device exception list” and this statement indicates that the invention is different from what is defined in the claim(s) because the claims state “upon determining that the individual entered the new area of the indoor location, analyzing, by the trained machine learning model, a current micro-location of the individual and based on the analyzing”. The specification states that three pieces of data must be analyzed the current micro-location, the individual's interaction history, and the individual’s device exception list while the claims only recite that the current micro-location must be used. Therefore, the applicant fails to set forth the subject matter of the invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHERI L. HARRINGTON whose telephone number is (571)270-0468. The examiner can normally be reached Generally, M-F, 7:30a-4p.
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, Jaweed Abbaszadeh can be reached at 571-270-1640. 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.
/CHERI L HARRINGTON/Examiner, Art Unit 2176 August 9, 2026
/JAWEED A ABBASZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2176
Prosecution Insights