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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
101
Applicant argues that the claims do not recite an abstract idea. The Examiner disagrees. Applicant’s specification describes an app may be programmed so that the decisions made by the app are personalized to the user of the smart device upon which the app is installed. This falls into the category of certain methods of organizing human activity.
112
Applicant has not remedied the deficiencies with the claim. Even if one was to look at a command linked to the state of the smart lock, the claim says that the command is executed. It is still unclear how that happens if the first device has not discovered a controllable device. Appropriate Correction is required.
103
Applicant argues that the recited claim is not taught by the cited reference. The Examiner disagrees. Marcinkowski states that the smart hub and it’s associated smart lock send status information. The claims do not preclude a smart hub from being a conduit for sending information from the smart lock. Further the mesh network used to send the information is a type of local wireless network. Paragraph 120 further breaks down the architecture. [0120] In some embodiments, smart hub 1422 (as the designated cellular backhaul of mesh network 1602) may be configured to establish a cellular backhaul connection with the property management platform at server 130 over cellular network 1410. Accordingly, smart hub 1422 may serve as a gateway for routing communications between smart hubs 1612, 1622, 1632, and 1642 (as different access points in mesh network 1602) and the property management platform via the cellular backhaul connection. The network described in Marcinkowski is a type of mech network, which is still a local area network recited by the claim. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A-Prong 1
The claims recite:
receiving from a communication having data indicative of a state; and
in response to receiving the data, causing a command that has been linked to the state to be executed.
The claims falls into the abstract idea groupings of (b) Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity ** fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk) commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)**
The limitations under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of managing personal behavior but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than recited, “smart lock device, media, wireless network, smart device, memory, processing device, wireless communications device”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being certain methods of organizing human activity. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A-Prong 2
The recited limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the following additional elements, smart lock device, media, wireless network, smart device, memory, processing device, wireless communications device, non-transitory computer readable medium”. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that in conjunction with the abstract limitations, they amount to no more than:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f);
- (non-transitory computer readable medium, memory, processor, wireless communication device)
mere data gathering/post solution activity in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process,-(receiving data from a smart lock on a local area, wireless network which includes the first smart device)
The claims do not include additional elements individually or in an ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Integration into a practical application requires the additional element(s) to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. This is not the case in the instant application. Further, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than: mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component; mere data gathering/post solution activity.
MPEP 2106 Step 2B-
Eligibility requires that the claim recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. As discussed above, this is where the instant application falls short. The claims do not include additional elements individually or in an ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. see MPEP 2106.05
Dependent Claims Step 2A:
The limitations of the dependent claims but for those addressed below merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea without changing the analysis already
presented (that is, they further limit the organizing of human activities at step 2A —
Prong One without adding any new additional elements other than those already
analyzed above with respect to the independent claims at 2A — Prong Two; While claim 3 describes a smart device, controllable device, smart lock, Claim 5 UWB, smart device; Claim 7-10 smart lock device and apps, the additional elements do not remedy the deficiencies. This analysis applies to the corresponding claims.
Dependent Claims Step 2B:
The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment
and instructions to implement the abstract idea as the independent claims without
adding any new additional elements. Accordingly, they are not directed to significantly
more than the exception itself, and are not eligible subject matter under § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim 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.
Claims 3 and 13 recite the limitation, “cause the first smart device to discover a controllable device within the wireless network and to automatically link to an app for controlling the controllable device whereby, in response to receiving the data, the instructions cause the command that has been linked to the state of the smart lock device to be executed by being sent to the app for controlling the controllable device” It is unclear how a device that is just discovered and requires app usage is already linked to a smartlock. For the purposes of Examination, the Examiner is interpreting the first smart device to discover a controllable device within the wireless network and to automatically link to an app for controlling the controllable device as meeting the limitation of the claim. Appropriate Correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-2 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marcinkowski et al. U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0316832 A1 in view of Skarda et al. U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0111141 A1
As per Claims 1 and 11, Marcinkowski teaches
a processing device (see para. 31 and 39);
a wireless communications device coupled to the processing device (see para. 31 and 40);
a memory coupled to the processing device, wherein the memory stores instructions, when executed by the processing device, cause the smart device to perform steps comprising (see para. 31 and 39):
receiving from a lock device on a local area, wireless network which includes the first smart device a communication having data indicative of a state of the smart lock device (see para. 121); and
Marcinkowski does not explicitly teach the limitation taught by Skarda
in response to receiving the data, causing a command that has been linked to the state of the smart lock device to be executed (see para. 88). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the media of Marcinkowski to include the teachings of Skarda to provide a convenient or reliable techniques for controlling various devices of the home automation system at the same time, as suggested by the cited portion or Skarda.
As per Claims 2 and 12, Marcinkowski in view of Skarda teaches the media of claim 1 as described above. Marcinkowski further teaches wherein the command comprises a command to control a state of a heating and/or cooling appliance (see para. 121).
Claims 3-4, 8-10, 13-14, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marcinkowski et al. U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0316832 A1 in view of Skarda et al. U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0111141 A1 in further view of Deptuck 2023/0280993
As per Claims 3, 8-10, 13 and 18-20, Marcinkowski in view of Skarda teaches the media of claim 1 as described above. Marcinkowski does not explicitly teach the limitation taught by Deptuck wherein the instructions, when executed by the processing device, cause the first smart device to discover a controllable device within the wireless network and to automatically link to an app for controlling the controllable device whereby, in response to receiving the data, the instructions cause the command that has been linked to the state of the smart lock device to be executed by being sent to the app for controlling the controllable device (see para. 20-21). The motivation is the same as opined above with respect to Skarda.
As per Claims 4 and 14, Marcinkowski in view of Skarda in further view of Deptuck teaches the media of claim 3 as described above. Marcinkowski further teaches wherein the command comprises a command to control a state of a heating and/or cooling appliance (see para. 121).
Claims 5-7 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marcinkowski et al. U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0316832 A1 in view of Skarda et al. U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0111141 A1 Proctor JR. U.S. Pre=Grant Publication No. 2020/0275225 A1
As per Claims 5 and 15, Marcinkowski in view of Skarda teaches the media of claim 1 as described above. Marcinkowski further teaches wherein the wireless network utilizes a communication protocol, the instructions, when executed by the processing device, cause the first smart device to use the communication protocol to determine a location of the first smart device relative to the smart lock device, and to additionally use the determined location of the first smart device relative to the smart lock device to determine the command that has been linked to the state of the smart lock device (see para. 71 and 125). Marcinkowski does not explicitly teach and UWB network. Proctor Jr. describes a smart hub running on a UWB (see para. 19). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the media of Marcinkowski and Skarda to include the teachings of Proctor JR to enable precise, short-range data transmission.
As per Claims 6 and 16, Marcinkowski in view of Skarda teaches the media of claim 5 as described above. Marcinkowski further teaches wherein the command comprises a command to control a state of a heating and/or cooling appliance (see para. 121).
As per Claims 7 and 17, Marcinkowski in view of Skarda in further view of Proctor teaches the media of claim 5 as described above. Marcinkowski further teaches, cause the first smart device to further use a determined location of a second smart device relative to the smart lock device to determine the command that has been linked to the state of the smart lock device (see para. 71 and 125).
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 TONYA S JOSEPH whose telephone number is (571)270-1361. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-2:30, First Fridays Off.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571) 272-5587. 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.
/TONYA JOSEPH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
