DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the Amendments and Arguments filed on 04/07/2026. Claims 2-21 are pending and have been examined.
Change in Examiner
The Examiner of record has changed from Feng-Tzer Tzeng To Paras Shah.
Response to Amendments and Arguments
With regard to the non-statutory double patenting rejection, the amendments made by the Applicant are not sufficient to overcome the rejection. The Applicant has requested that these rejections be held in abeyance and therefore the rejection is maintained and has been updated below.
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim rejections under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and the previous rejection has been withdrawn by the Examiner in light of the present amendments made to the independent claims specifically related to “rule specifying…”. “the rule including…”, “subsequent to storing the rule”, and “wherein the input data is different from the user input” per claim 2 and the other independent claims which recite some of these amendments as well necessitates new grounds for rejections. Hence, a new prior art has been cited in light of these amendments therefore rendering the arguments moot.
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.
Claims 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warren (US 2015/0324706) in view of Bultan (US 9,866,308).
As per claim 2, Warren teaches A system comprising:
one or more processors (see [0031], where processor 120 described); and
memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to (see [0076], where storage described storing program):
receive, based at least in part on user input to a natural language interface, request data defining a rule specifying an action to be performed by a first device associated with a user account, the action being based on satisfaction of a condition, wherein the condition is independent of the user input (see [0057], where user provides a command of “set new rule”, “start rules mode” to initiate rule setting, where [0059], provides a sample rule being created “lock the front door every time Bill arms the system);
store, in a data store, the rule, the rule including first data specifying at least one word that, when identified from input data, results in performance of the action by the first device based on a satisfaction of the condition (see [0059]-[0060], where rule storage may store the rule for later use which is confirmed as “lock the door every time Bill arms the system”);
subsequent to storing the rule, receive, from a second device associated with the user account, the input data, wherein the input data is different from the user input (see [0037], user provides command “arm system” by device 105 or remote control and where home automation system determines a difference between Bill and other users by way of a security code, voice recognition or pre-registered device that is identifiable and see [0028], where vocabulary comprises names or identifiers of persons authorized to access property);
determine, based at least in part on analysis of the input data, that the at least one word is included in the input data (see [0037], where “arm system” is identified based on an existing rule);
determine that the condition is satisfied (see [0037], where rules based on certain conditions provide automated functionality); and
send, based at least in part on determining that the at least one word is included in the input data and based on determining that the condition is satisfied, directive data to the first device to cause the performance of the action (see [0036], where after the rules are created and stored, these rules are used to provide automated function of the home automation such as in [0037], where front door is locked when Bill arms the system) (e.g. The examiner notes that the condition being satisfied is the user Bill arming the system that causes doors to lock (first device)).
However, Warren does not specifically teach “action performed by a first device associated with a first user account” and “receive from a second device associated with the user account”.
Bultan (US 9,866,308) is cited to disclose action performed by a first device associated with a first user account” (see Figure 4A, composite table shown and is associated with different users, Mom, Dad).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventions to have modified the first device association as taught by Warren with the first device associated with an account as taught by Bultan in order to allow the system to be trained by more than one user who is authorized (see Bultan col. 6, lines 60-67).
As to claim 3, Warren in view of Bultan teaches all of the limitations as in claim 2.
Furthermore, Bultan teaches wherein the first data specifies multiple different actions including the action, and wherein sending the directive data causes performance of the multiple different actions (see col. 8, lines 33-57, where rules are set based on specific sequence of turning on bedroom lights, and turning off living room lights and in another example of turning on bedroom tv channel 2, turn bedroom tv off at 11pm and then turn bedroom lights off at 12pm such are executed in the order presented and comprise multiple actions).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventions to have modified the first device association as taught by Warren with the first device associated the multiple different actions as taught by Bultan in order to prevent daily repetition of commands into a single training instance which can be processed automatically (see Bultan col. 4, lines 26-37).
As to claim 4, Warren in view of Bultan teaches all of the limitations as in claim 3.
Furthermore, Bultan teaches wherein the first data specifies a sequence in which the multiple different actions are to be performed, and wherein sending the directive data causes the performance of the multiple different actions in the sequence (see col. 8, lines 33-57, where rules are set based on specific sequence of turning on bedroom lights, and turning off living room lights and in another example of turning on bedroom tv channel 2, turn bedroom tv off at 11pm and then turn bedroom lights off at 12pm such are executed in the order presented).
As to claim 5, Warren in view of Bultan teaches all of the limitations as in claim 2.
Furthermore, Warren teaches wherein the directive data includes an identifier of the first device (see [0037], front door is locked).
Furthermore, Bultan teaches wherein the directive data includes an identifier of the first device (see col 14, lines 25-35, where target identifier identifies the target of the smart device for which to control).
The same motivation as in claim 3 applies.
As to claim 6, Warren in view of Bultan teaches all of the limitations as in claim 2.
Furthermore, Warren teaches wherein the performance of the action causes a state of the first device to change (see [0065], where device state “lock”).
Furthermore, Bultan teaches wherein the performance of the action causes a state of the first device to change (see Figure 4a, table 400, where different device states provided and see col. 14, lines 44-45, turning on a smart switch)).
The same motivation as in claim 3 applies.
As to claim 7, Warren in view of Bultan teaches all of the limitations as in claim 2.
Furthermore, Bultan teaches wherein the performance of the action comprises outputting audio via a speaker of the first device (see col. 15, lines 25-33, where if the rules that are stored are in conflict an audio is output via speaker 202 to resolve the conflict and execute the action).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventions to have modified the first device association as taught by Warren with the audio output as taught by Bultan in order to resolve conflict when two users have similar rules (see col 15, lines 25-33).
As to claim 8, A method comprising:
receiving, based at least in part on user input to a natural language interface, request data indicating a user request defining a rule specifying the operation being based on satisfaction of a condition, wherein the condition is independent of the user input (see [0057], where user provides a command of “set new rule”, “start rules mode” to initiate rule setting, where [0059], provides a sample rule being created “lock the front door every time Bill arms the system);;
storing, in a data store, the rule, the rule including first data specifying at least one word that, when identified from input data, results in performance of the operation by the first device based on a satisfaction of the condition (see [0059]-[0060], where rule storage may store the rule for later use which is confirmed as “lock the door every time Bill arms the system”);
subsequent to storing the rule, receiving, from a second device associated with the user account, the input data; determining, based at least in part on analysis of the input data, that the at least one word is included in the input data (see [0037], user provides command “arm system” by device 105 or remote control and where home automation system determines a difference between Bill and other users by way of a security code, voice recognition or pre-registered device that is identifiable and see [0028], where vocabulary comprises names or identifiers of persons authorized to access property);
determining that the condition is satisfied (see [0037], where rules based on certain conditions provide automated functionality); and
causing, based at least in part on the determining that the at least one word is included in the input data and based on determining that the condition is satisfied, the performance of the operation by the first device (see [0036], where after the rules are created and stored, these rules are used to provide automated function of the home automation such as in [0037], where front door is locked when Bill arms the system) (e.g. The examiner notes that the condition being satisfied is the user Bill arming the system that causes doors to lock (first device)).
However, Warren does not specifically teach “action performed by a first device associated with a first user account”.
Bultan (US 9,866,308) is cited to disclose action performed by a first device associated with a first user account” (see Figure 4A, composite table shown and is associated with different users, Mom, Dad).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventions to have modified the first device association as taught by Warren with the first device associated with an account as taught by Bultan in order to allow the system to be trained by more than one user who is authorized (see Bultan col. 6, lines 60-67).
As to clam 9, Warren in view of Bultan teaches all of the limitations as in claim 8.
Furthermore, Bultan further comprising causing performance of the operation and at least one additional different related operation (see col. 8, lines 60-col. 9, lines 13, where Dad issues instructions related to Lights Off, Temperature Lower, and Security On, which is created as rule and then the rule is executed to perform each action).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventions to have modified the first device association as taught by Warren with the first device associated the multiple different actions as taught by Bultan in order to prevent daily repetition of commands into a single training instance which can be processed automatically (see Bultan col. 4, lines 26-37).
As to clam 10, Warren in view of Bultan teaches all of the limitations as in claim 9.
Furthermore, Bultan teaches further comprising causing performance of the operation and the at least one additional different related operation in a sequence (see col. 8, lines 33-57, where rules are set based on specific sequence of turning on bedroom lights, and turning off living room lights and in another example of turning on bedroom tv channel 2, turn bedroom tv off at 11pm and then turn bedroom lights off at 12pm such are executed in the order presented).
As to clam 11, Warren in view of Bultan teaches all of the limitations as in claim 8.
Furthermore, Bultan teaches further comprising sending directive data to the first device to cause the performance of the operation (see col. 7, lines 45-51, where directive sent to wireless smart lock on the front door based on rule being executed based on wired or wireless connection).
The same motivation as in claim 9 applies.
As to clam 12, Warren in view of Bultan teaches all of the limitations as in claim 11.
Furthermore, Warren teaches teaches wherein the directive data includes an identifier of the first device (see [0037], front door is locked).
Furthermore, Bultan teaches, further comprising sending directive data using an identifier of the first device, the directive data associated with causing the first device to perform the operation (see col 14, lines 25-35, where target identifier identifies the target of the smart device for which to control).
The same motivation as in claim 9 applies.
As to clam 13, Warren in view of Bultan teaches all of the limitations as in claim 8.
Furthermore, Warren teaches further comprising determining the second device is collocated in an environment with the first device (see [0037], example with respect to the arming the system requires the mobile device to be spoken from anywhere in the property and relates to using the mobile phone and aspects of the home automation system for alarm system control and locking the front door).
Furthermore, Bultan teaches determining the second device is collocated in an environment with the first device (see Figure 2B, smart transceiver 200A which is placed in the environment to control devices and see col 7, lines 45-51).
The same motivation as in claim 9 applies.
As to clam 14, Warren in view of Bultan teaches all of the limitations as in claim 8.
Furthermore, Warren teaches further comprising causing a state of the first device to change (see [0065], where device state “lock”).
Furthermore, Bultan teaches further comprising causing a state of the first device to change (see Figure 4a, table 400, where different device states provided and see col. 14, lines 44-45, turning on a smart switch)).
The same motivation as in claim 9 applies.
As to clam 15, Warren in view of Bultan teaches all of the limitations as in claim 8.
Furthermore, Bultan teaches further comprising outputting content via a display of the first device (see col. 8, lines 15-30, where TV is turned on and channel changed via wired or wireless connection).
The same motivation as in claim 9 applies.
As to claim 16, Warren teaches a method comprising:
receiving, based at least in part on user input to a natural language interface, request data indicating a user request defining a rule specifying an operation to be performed by a first device the operation based on satisfaction of a condition, wherein the condition is independent of the user input (see [0057], where user provides a command of “set new rule”, “start rules mode” to initiate rule setting, where [0059], provides a sample rule being created “lock the front door every time Bill arms the system);
storing, in a data store, the rule, the rule including first data specifying an event that results in performance of the operation by the first device based on a satisfaction of the condition (see [0059]-[0060], where rule storage may store the rule for later use which is confirmed as “lock the door every time Bill arms the system”, where if Bill arms the system the door is locked);
subsequent to storing the rule, determining that the event has occurred (see [0037], user provides command “arm system” by device 105 or remote control and where home automation system determines a difference between Bill and other users by way of a security code, voice recognition or pre-registered device that is identifiable and see [0028], where vocabulary comprises names or identifiers of persons authorized to access property);
determining that the condition is satisfied (see [0037], where rules based on certain conditions provide automated functionality); and
sending, based at least in part on the determining that the event has occurred and based on determining that the condition is satisfied, directive data to the first device to cause performance of the operation (see [0036], where after the rules are created and stored, these rules are used to provide automated function of the home automation such as in [0037], where front door is locked when Bill arms the system) (e.g. The examiner notes that the condition being satisfied is the user Bill arming the system which is an event that causes doors to lock (first device)).
However, Warren does not specifically teach “action performed by a first device associated with a first user account”.
Bultan (US 9,866,308) is cited to disclose action performed by a first device associated with a first user account” (see Figure 4A, composite table shown and is associated with different users, Mom, Dad).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventions to have modified the first device association as taught by Warren with the first device associated with an account as taught by Bultan in order to allow the system to be trained by more than one user who is authorized (see Bultan col. 6, lines 60-67).
As to clam 17, Warren in view of Bultan teaches all of the limitations as in claim 16.
Furthermore, Bultan teaches further comprising determining that the event has occurred using a machine-learning model (see col 14, lines 13-50, where training circuit identifies spoken commands and generates corresponding riles which combines the rules to an action and performs the action based on context where the training instructions are based on a pattern match with the voice profile and the corresponding identification table to identify the target which is the device for which the rule is intended for and see col. 14, lines 51-col 15, lines 15, where the execution takes place based on spatial context).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventions to have modified the first device association as taught by Warren with the training as taught by Bultan in order to prevent daily repetition of commands into a single training instance which can be processed automatically (see Bultan col. 4, lines 26-37).
As to clam 18, Warren in view of Bultan teaches all of the limitations as in claim 16.
Furthermore, Bultan teaches further comprising receiving event data from the first device (see col. 9, lines 54-58, where smart devices relay their changed states to the smart transceiver) ; and
determining that the event has occurred based at least in part on an analysis of the event data (see col. 9, lines 40-18, where based on Dad leaving the room then appropriate actions taken including controlling the states of the devices and see col 9, lines 54-58where data is sent back to the transceiver).
The same motivation as in claim 17 applies.
As to clam 19, Warren in view of Bultan teaches all of the limitations as in claim 16.
Furthermore, Bultan teaches further comprising:
determining a current time corresponding to a time specified by the first data (see col 9, lines 50-54, where time and location is noted by the smart transceiver); and
determining the event has occurred based at least in part on determining that the current time corresponds to the time (see col 8, lines 53-58, where time to execute rule is provided and then executed to tune the TV to channel 2 at the scheduled times).
The same motivation as in claim 17 applies.
As to clam 20, Warren in view of Bultan teaches all of the limitations as in claim 16.
Furthermore, Bultan teaches further comprising causing performance of the operation and at least one additional different related operation (see col. 8, lines 60-col. 9, lines 13, where Dad issues instructions related to Lights Off, Temperature Lower, and Security On, which is created as rule and then the rule is executed to perform each action).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventions to have modified the first device association as taught by Warren with the first device associated the multiple different actions as taught by Bultan in order to prevent daily repetition of commands into a single training instance which can be processed automatically (see Bultan col. 4, lines 26-37).
As to clam 21, Warren in view of Bultan teaches all of the limitations as in claim 20.
Furthermore, Bultan teaches further comprising causing performance of the operation and the at least one additional different related operation in a sequence (see col. 8, lines 33-57, where rules are set based on specific sequence of turning on bedroom lights, and turning off living room lights and in another example of turning on bedroom tv channel 2, turn bedroom tv off at 11pm and then turn bedroom lights off at 12pm such are executed in the order presented).
Double Patenting
Claims of the present application are rejected (except claim 17) on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over respective claims of U.S. patent 11822857 (original application 16/924835) in view of the references cited in this Office action.
Present application – 2/8/11/16. A system comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: receive, based at least in part on user input to a natural language interface, request data defining a rule specifying an action to be performed by a first device associated with a user account, the action being based on satisfaction of a condition; store, in a data store, the rule, the rule including first data specifying at least one word that, when identified from input data, results in performance of the action by the first device based on a satisfaction of satisfies the condition; subsequent to storing the rule, receive, from a second device associated with the user account, the input data, wherein the input data is different from the user input; determine, based at least in part on analysis of the input data, that the at least one word is included in the input data; determine that the condition is satisfied; and send, based at least in part on determining that the at least one word is included in the input data and based on determining that the condition is satisfied, directive data to the first device to cause the performance of the action. [for claim 16, event replaces word identified and for claims 2: wherein the input data is different from user input which is evident per the issued patent user input vs audio input]
Patent 11822857 – 21 or 35. A system comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: receive, based at least in part on user input to a graphical user interface, request data indicating a user request to define a rule that specifies an action to be performed by a first device associated with a user account, store, in a data store, first data specifying a word that, when identified from audio data that represents user speech, causes performance of the action; receive, from a second device associated with the user account, the audio data; determine, based at least in part on analysis of the audio data, that the word is associated with the audio data; and send, based at least in part on determining that the word is associated with the audio data, directive data to the first device to cause the performance of the action. [for claim 35, event replaces word identified]
Present application – 3. The system of claim 2, wherein the first data specifies multiple different actions including the action, and wherein sending the directive data causes performance of the multiple different actions.
Patent 11822857 – 22. The system of claim 21, wherein the first data specifies multiple actions including the action, and wherein sending the directive data causes performance of the multiple actions.
Present application - 4. The system of claim 3, wherein the first data specifies a sequence in which the multiple different actions are to be performed, and wherein sending the directive data causes the performance of the multiple different actions in the sequence.
Patent 11822857 – 23. The system of claim 22, wherein the first data specifies a sequence in which the multiple actions are to be performed, and wherein sending the directive data causes the performance of the multiple actions in the sequence.
Present application – 5/12. The system of claim 2, wherein the directive data includes an identifier of the first device.
Patent 11822857 – 24. The system of claim 21, wherein the directive data includes an identifier of the first device.
Present application – 6/14. The system of claim 2, wherein the performance of the action causes a state of the first device to change.
Patent 11822857 – 25. The system of claim 24, wherein the performance of the action causes a state of the first device to change.
Present application – 7/15. The system of claim 2, wherein the performance of the action comprises outputting audio via a speaker of the first device. [For claim 15, see 103 section]
Patent 11822857 – 26. The system of claim 21, wherein the performance of the action comprises outputting audio via a speaker of the first device.
Present application – 9/20. The method of claim 8, further comprising causing performance of the operation and at least one additional related operation. [see claim 9, section 103]
Patent 11822857 – 28.. The method of claim 27, wherein the first data specifies multiple operations including the operation, and wherein the causing of the performance of the operation comprises causing performance of the multiple operations.
Present application – 10/21. The method of claim 9, further comprising causing performance of the operation and the at least one additional related operation in a sequence. [see claim 10, section 103]
Patent 11822857 – 29. The method of claim 28, wherein the first data specifies a sequence in which the multiple operations are to be performed, and wherein the causing of the performance of the multiple operations comprises causing the performance of the multiple operations in the sequence.
Present application - 13. The method of claim 8, further comprising determining the second device is collocated in an environment with the first device.
Patent 11822857 – 32. The method of claim 31, wherein the second device is collocated in an environment with the first device.
Present application - 18. The method of claim 16, further comprising receiving event data from the first device; and determining that the event has occurred based at least in part on an analysis of the event data.
Patent 11822857 – 36. The method of claim 35, further comprising receiving event data from the first device, wherein the determining that the event has occurred is based at least in part on an analysis of the event data.
Present application - 19. The method of claim 16, further comprising: determining a current time corresponding to a time specified by the first data; and determining the event has occurred based at least in part on determining that the current time corresponds to the time.
Patent 11822857 – 37. The method of claim 35, wherein the first data specifies a time, the method further comprising determining that a current time corresponds to the time, and wherein the determining that the event has occurred is based at least in part on the determining that the current time corresponds to the time.
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 PARAS D SHAH whose telephone number is (571)270-1650. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30AM-2:30PM, 5PM-7PM (EST), Friday 8AM-noon (EST).
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, PARAS D SHAH can be reached at 571-270-1650. 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.
/Paras D Shah/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2653
04/22/2026
Prosecution Insights