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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is responsive to communication filed on 6/25/2026.
Claim 5 is canceled.
Claims 1-3, 6, 8, 10-14, 16-18 and 20 are amended.
Claims 1-4 and 6-20 are pending and presented for examination.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Regarding Objections to the Specification
Applicant Argues
The title has been amended to address the objection to the specification set forth in the previous office action.
Examiner Responds
Applicant’s response has been considered and is persuasive. The objection to the specification set forth in the previous office action is withdrawn.
Regarding Objection to Claim 6
Applicant Argues
The claim has been amended to satisfy the objection set forth in the previous office action.
Examiner Responds
Applicant’s response has been considered and is persuasive. The objection to claim 6 set forth in the previous office action is withdrawn.
Regarding Claim Rejections under §112
Applicant Argues
Claim 5 has been canceled and claim 12 has been amended to address the rejection under §112(b) set forth in the previous office action.
Examiner Responds
Applicant’s response has been considered and is persuasive in part. The rejection to claim 5 set forth in the previous office action is withdrawn. The amendment to claim 12 does not cure the deficiencies outlined in the previous office action and the rejection is maintained, as outlined below.
Regarding Claim Rejections under §102 and §103
Applicant Argues
The cited prior art does not teach or suggest amended claims 1, 16 and 20.
Examiner Responds
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 16 and 20 have been fully 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. Applicant’s arguments are over amended features and are rejected over newly discovered prior art.
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 2-3, 6, 8, 12-14 and 17-18 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.
Regarding claim 2
Claim 2 depends on claim 1 and recites to determine a priority order for the first and second components of operation information “based on information regarding a user who is a transmission source of each of the first component of operation information and the second component of operation information”, however this is unclear. Claim 1 requires that the source of the first component of operation information be a first user terminal and that the source of the second component of operation information be a second user terminal. While claim 1 does not recite “a transmission source”, claim 1 requires that the device “receive[s] […] a first component of operation information from a first user terminal” and that the device “receive[s] […] a second component of operation information from a second user terminal”. In other words, as the claimed device is configured to receive signals containing information from user terminal devices such that the information can be processed to implement a control operation, claim 1 requires two transmission sources, those two transmission sources being a first user terminal and a second user terminal. Additionally, the claim does not sufficiently define the relationship between “a user” and the first and second user terminals of claim 1. In view of the clarity issues outlined above, the claim is interpreted as to “determine a priority order for the first component of operation information and the second component of operation information based on information regarding a first user, wherein the first user is associated with the first user terminal, and a second user, wherein the second user is associated with the second user terminal; and generate the command based on the priority order.”
Regarding claims 3, 6, 8, 13-14 and 17-18
Claims 3, 6, 8, 13-14 and 17-18 each recite “a user who is a transmission source”, however, this is unclear for the reasons outlined above regarding claim 2. The examiner will interpret the limitation of the claims in a manner similar to how the limitation in question was interpreted in claim 2 (i.e., a first user will be associated with the first user terminal, and a second user will be associated with the second user terminal, and as required by claim 1, the first user terminal is associated with the first component of operation information and the second user terminal is associated with the second component of operation information).
Dependent claims are likewise rejected.
Regarding claim 6
Claim 6 recites to generate the command in response to “a determination that a user who is a transmission source […] is located within a predefined area”, however this is unclear as the claimed predefined area has no reference point and the claim does not define the predefined area relative to any other recited element (e.g., compare to “a determination that a user who is a transmission source […] is located within a predefined area of the target device”).
Dependent claims are likewise rejected.
Regarding claim 12
MPEP 2173.05(A)(1): “The meaning of every term used in a claim should be apparent from the prior art or from the specification and drawings at the time the application is filed. Claim language may not be "ambiguous, vague, incoherent, opaque, or otherwise unclear in describing and defining the claimed invention." In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1311, 110 USPQ2d 1785, 1787 (Fed. Cir. 2014).”
Claim 12 recites “to generate the command based on a weighted average of set values identified in the requested commands” and to “assign a first weight to a first set value” and to “assign a second weight to a second set value.” However, this is unclear. Does the first or second set value for the target device indicated by the first or second requested command included in the first component of operation information correspond to a component set in the operation information (e.g., a bit set to a value of 0 to indicate something), or does the set value correspond to a set of bits in the operation information (e.g., a string of bits wherein the bits correspond to a user terminal, assigned priority and/or priority order, target device set-point)? The examiner referenced [0038] of Applicant’s published specification in an attempt to determine the metes and bounds of the claims, however the cited paragraph does not define “set values” with sufficient clarity to which claim construction applies, such that one of ordinary skill in the art would still be unable to determine the metes and bounds of the claim.
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 1-3, 6-9, 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OKAMOTO (US20140156030A1) (hereinafter – “OKAMOTO”).
Regarding claims 1, 16 and 20
OKAMOTO teaches an operation control device comprising a controller configured to resolve conflicting commands (Abstract: operation control device/remote controller managing device “includes a conflict determining module and a controller. The conflict determining module is configured to determine whether the operation instructions of the remote controllers conflict with each other when the operation instructions are issued by the remote controllers. The controller is configured to control the target control device”, i.e., the remote controller managing device is configured to control a target device according to a requested command received by the managing device, the requested command being received from a user terminal/remote controller) and that the device is configured to:
receive, Fig. 5, #S11, [0059]: “remote controller managing device 100 receives a remote controller operation from the operating terminal 200”, operation control device/remote controller managing device receiving “a remote controller operation” implies receiving a signal containing components of operation information that indicates a requested command as the remote controller is used to control a target device via the remote controller managing device, as block S11 immediately follows the start block and the disclosure is directed to resolving conflicting commands between different user terminals, it is also implied that the remote controller operation received from the operation terminal 200 is the first signal received from an associated first user terminal);
receive, Fig. 5, #S12, [0060]-[0062]: “Upon receipt of the remote controller operation from one of the operating terminals 200, the remote controller managing device 100 determines whether a remote controller operation from other operating terminal 200 is received […] If it is determined at S12 that the remote controller operation has been received (Yes at S12)”, as block S12 immediately follows block S11, the “remote controller operation from other operating terminal” implies a second user terminal that transmits an associated signal containing components of operation information that indicates a requested command; a “YES” at Fig. 5 #S17 suggests that the first requested command is different than the second requested command);
generate a command for the target device based on the first component of operation information and the second component of operation information, the command being (i) the same as one of the first requested command or the second requested command Fig. 5, #S17, #S18, #S20, [0079]: “if it is determined at S17 that the operation contents conflict with each other(Yes at S17), the remote controller managing device 100 determines whether the operating terminal 200 that issued the received remote controller operation has a priority order higher than a priority order of the other operating terminal 200 (S18)” [0095]-[0096]: “Specifically, if it is determined at S18 that the operating terminal 200 that issued the received remote controller operation has a priority order higher than a priority order of the other operating terminal 200 (Yes at S18), the remote controller managing device 100 proceeds to S20, executes the received remote controller operation […] If it is determined at S18 that the operating terminal 200 that issued the received remote control operation has a priority order lower than the priority order of the other operating terminal 200 (No at S18), the remote controller managing device 100 notifies that the operation has been rejected”, i.e., at S11 the remote controller managing device receives a first component of operation information indicating a first requested command for a target device from a first user terminal, at S12 the remote controller managing device receives a second component of operation information indicating a second requested command for the target device, at S17 and prior to S18 it is determined that first requested command is different from the second requested command, at S20 the target device is controlled in accordance with the first requested command if the first requested command has a higher priority than the second requested command, note that S20 “PERFORM REMOTE CONTROLLER OPERATION” implies the generation of a command for the target device such that the target device can be controlled in accordance with the generated command); and
control the target device in accordance with the generated command (Fig. 5, #S20).
Thus, OKAMOTO teaches an operation control device configured to control a target device. OKAMOTO’s operation control device is configured to receive, from a first user terminal, an associated first command request for a target device, and to receive, from a second user terminal, an associated second command request for the same target device. OKAMOTO also teaches that the first and second command requests may be conflicting commands and thus the first requested command may be different from the second requested command. In response to receiving conflicting commands, OKAMOTO’s operation control device is configured to generate a command to control the target device in accordance with either the first or the second requested command depending on a priority level associated with the requested command such that the generated command is used to control the target device.
OKAMOTO further discloses a method for resolving conflicts based on the priority order in [0088]-[0093] “[0090] Specifically, there is considered a case when the user "Taro" has a priority order higher than apriority order of the user "Jiro" and these users select channels different from each other substantially at the same time (assuming that "Taro" selects channel 1 and "Jiro" selects channel 2). [0091] In this case, if "Jiro" selects channel 2 first, channel 2 is instantaneously displayed, immediately followed by the display of channel 1 selected by "Taro". [0092] Conversely, if "Taro" selects channel 1 first, channel 2 selected immediately thereafter by "Jiro" is not displayed at all.” [0090] discloses two users, user #1 (Taro) and user #2 (Jiro), wherein user #1 has a higher priority order than user #2; note that in view of OKAMOTO’s abstract and teachings throughout the disclosure that it is implied that user #1 is associated with a first user terminal and user #2 is associated with a second user terminal. [0090] also discloses that the first and second command requests are received nearly simultaneously (“substantially at the same time”), and in view of [0092]’s teaching that “if "Jiro" selects channel 2 first”, implies that “substantially at the same time” means that both command requests are received within a predetermined time period and that the first and second command requests can be received at different times within the predetermined time period (see [0093] provides further support for this implication).
In summary, OKAMOTO teaches an operation control device comprising a controller configured to receive a first requested command for a target device from a first user terminal and to receive a second requested command for the target device from a second user terminal, wherein the first and second requested commands are operation command requests for the target device that conflict with each other, and in response to receiving the requested commands, to generate a command for the target device based on the first and second requested commands, wherein the requested command is the same as either the first or second requested command. OKAMOTO also teaches a method of resolving the conflicting command requests, and teaches or at least suggests that the first and second requested commands are received at different times within a predetermined time period. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to configure OKAMOTO’s operation control device, which is configured to resolve conflicting command requests, with OKAMOTO’s method of resolving conflicts such that when two conflicting command requests for a target device are received by the operational control device within a short period of time, the command request associated with a higher priority would be used to generate and control the target device, as taught by OKAMOTO.
Regarding claim 16
Claim 16 recites a method comprising substantially the same limitations as claim 1 and are rejected as per such.
Regarding claim 20
OKAMOTO teaches a target device, a first user device configured to receive a first requested command for the target device, a second user device configured to receive a second requested command for the target device from a second user, and an operation control device operatively coupled to the target device, the first user device, and the second user device, and comprising a controller (Abstract). The remaining limitations of the claim are directed to the operations of the controller and are substantially the same as claim 1 and are rejected as per such.
Regarding claims 2 and 17
OKAMOTO teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. OKAMOTO also teaches or at least suggests:
determining a priority order for the first component of operation information and the second component of operation information based on information regarding a user who is a transmission source of each of the first component of operation informant and the second component of operation information; and generating the command based on the priority order (Fig. 3, Fig. 5 #S18, [0088]-[0092]).
Regarding claim 17
OKAMOTO teaches the elements of claim 16 as outlined above. The remaining limitations of claim 17 are substantially the same as claim 2 and are rejected as per such.
Regarding claims 3 and 18
OKAMOTO teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. OKAMOTO also teaches or at least suggests:
generating the command based on (a) the first component of operation information and the second component of operation information, and (b) information regarding a location of a user who is a transmission source of each of the first component of operation information and the second component of operation information ([0124]: “A specific operating terminal (remote controller) that is thereby estimated to be located closer to the TV is given a higher priority order”).
Regarding claim 18
OKAMOTO teaches the elements of claim 16 as outlined above. The remaining limitations of claim 18 are substantially the same as claim 3 and are rejected as per such.
Regarding claim 6
OKAMOTO teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. OKAMOTO also teaches or at least suggests to generate the command being the same as the second requested command based on the second component of operation information in response to a determination that a user who is a transmission source of the second component of operation information is located within a predefined area ([0124]: “an operating command is received from an operating terminal outside a predetermined range”).
Regarding claim 7
OKAMOTO teaches or at least suggests the elements of claim 6 as best understood as outlined above. OKAMOTO also teaches or at least suggests that the predefined area contains the target device ([0124]: “if an operating command is received from an operating terminal outside a predetermined range, the specific operating terminal may be authorized to use only part of the functions of the TV”).
Regarding claim 8
OKAMOTO teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. OKAMOTO also teaches or at least suggests to ignore the second requested command for the target device in response to a determination that a user who is a transmission source of the second requested command is located outside of a predefined area ([0124]: “if an operating command is received from an operating terminal outside a predetermined range, the specific operating terminal may be authorized to use only part of the functions of the TV” Fig. 5, S19 teaches ignoring requested commands).
Regarding claim 9
OKAMOTO teaches or at least suggests the elements of claim 8 as best understood as outlined above. OKAMOTO also teaches or at least suggests that the predefined area contains the target device ([0124]: “if an operating command is received from an operating terminal outside a predetermined range, the specific operating terminal may be authorized to use only part of the functions of the TV”).
Claims 4 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OKAMOTO in view of NOLAN (US20160345414A1).
Regarding claims 4 and 19
OKAMOTO teaches or at least suggests the elements of claim 3 as best understood outlined above. OKAMOTO is not relied on to generate the command based on information regarding a location where the target device is installed. However, NOLAN in analogous art teaches a method of multi-user arbitration “to deal with the possibility that two or more users are detected in the same space 4 (e.g. same room) and both attempt conflicting operations at the same time” including determining a distance between the users and the target device such that the user closer to the target device is given priority ([0059]), and teaches determining the distance between the user and the target device using the location of where the target device is installed ([0051]).
NOLAN is analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of resolving conflicting commands for a target device. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of NOLAN to the teachings of OKAMOTO such that the absolute location of the target device would be known so a relative distance to a user terminal would be able to be determined such that the conflicting commands for the target device could be resolved according to control policy logic, as suggested by NOLAN ([0059]).
Regarding claim 19
OKAMOTO teaches the elements of claim 16 as outlined above. The remaining limitations of claim 19 are substantially the same as claim 4 and are rejected as per such.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OKAMOTO in view of GREEN (US20170038771A1) (hereinafter – “OKAMOTO-GREEN”).
Regarding claim 10
OKAMOTO teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. OKAMOTO teaches receiving the first and second components of operation information within a predetermined time period as outlined above. OKAMOTO is not relied on to determine a priority order for the first and second components of operation information based on when each component of operation information is received and to generate the command based on the priority order. However, GREEN in an analogous art teaches a method of resolving conflicting commands between two users attempting to control a target device, the method comprising implementing the most recent command request received ([0287]: “the watercraft can follow commands from both the driver (e.g., via the driver user interface 155) and the rider (e.g., via the rider control device 134), and if conflicting commands are received the watercraft can follow the most recent command”).
GREEN is analogous art to the claimed invention because GREEN is from the same field of resolving conflicting commands for a target device. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of GREEN to the teachings of OKAMOTO such that OKAMOTO’s device would have been configured with GREEN’s method of assigning priority to command requests received based on when the command requests were received for the purposes of determining which command to implement in the target device when the conflicting commands are generated by users having the same priority order. For example, as outlined above under claim 1, OKAMOTO teaches a method of resolving conflicting commands between two users, user #1 (Taro) and user #2 (Jiro), wherein user #1 has a higher priority order than user #2, [0090]-[0093]. In view of this teaching, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized a need for resolving conflicting commands in a case where two conflicting commands are submitted within the predetermined time period by users of the same priority order; and GREEN teaches resolving such a case by generating the command for the target device based on the most recent command request.
Regarding claim 11
OKAMOTO-GREEN teaches or at least suggests the elements of claim 10 as outlined above. GREEN also teaches or at least suggests assigning the first component of operation information a lower priority than the second component of operation information in response to a determination that the first time was earlier than the second time within the predetermined time period ([0124]: “follow the most recent command” implies that the second command request was assigned a higher priority as it is the command request that is implemented).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OKAMOTO-GREEN in view of LEFEVRE (US20180136950A1).
Regarding claim 12
OKAMOTO-GREEN teaches or at least suggests the elements of claim 11 as outlined above. OKAMOTO-GREEN are not relied on to resolve conflicting commands by determining a weighted average of the command requests such that the device generates the command for the target device based on the weighted average. However, LEFEVRE in an analogous art teaches this claim limitation ([0024]-[0031]: settings negotiation (i.e., conflict resolution of conflicting commands) method when more than one person is logged in and attempting control of appliance a determination of which settings to use must be made, user with highest priority wins the negotiation, settings can be determined using weighted mean).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of LEFEVRE to the teachings of OKAMOTO-GREEN such that OKAMOTO-GREEN’s device would have been configured to generate the command for the target device based on a weighted average of the conflicting control command requests for the purposes of resolving conflicting command requests in a case where the conflicting command requests are not simple on/off commands. LEFEVRE teaches such an example with wherein three users attempt to control the volume of the target device, and based on the priority level of the three users and the set points associated with each user, a volume set point of the target device is generated and subsequently implemented (see LEFEVRE [0027]).
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OKAMOTO in view of NORTON (US20230154460A1).
Regarding claim 13
OKAMOTO teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. OKAMOTO teaches or at least suggests the controller is configured to generate the command based on (a) the first component of operation information and the second component of operation information and (b) information regarding an authority [0089]: “As a method for resolving conflicts when the conflicts occur, it can be considered a method that provides priority to an operation of a remote controller having higher priority order, in accordance with the priority orders of the operation authority”).
OKAMOTO is not relied on for assigning a user associated with a requested command an authority level. However, NORTON in an analogous art teaches a digital assistant comprising a controller configured to receive requested commands from multiple users such that conflicting requested commands are resolved based on an authority level and a command is generated for a target device (Abstract: digital assistance (DA) device configured to “determine whether the performance of the first function would conflict with performance of a second function. In response to determining that the performance of the first function would conflict with the performance of the second function, the one or more processors determine whether the source of the voice command has authority to override the second function”, [0030]: DA device comprises controller, [0034]: “external devices may be “smart”-enabled devices with circuitry configured to allow the external devices to be controlled via a hub device (e.g., the DA device 100) within a connected ecosystem”; Fig. 3 #308 “Authority Level”).
NORTON is analogous art to the claimed invention because NORTON is from the same field of resolving conflicting commands for a target device. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of NORTON to the teachings of OKAMOTO such that user #1 and user #2 of OKAMOTO would also be assigned an authority level for the purposes of preventing a user from operating a device that may significantly increase utility costs and/or presents some kind of hazard. While OKAMOTO teaches a use case when two users are attempting to control a TV with conflicting commands, NORTON teaches that their operation control/DA device can be configured to control household appliances such as fireplaces, HVAC components, and kitchen appliances such as a stove/range or oven (Norton, [0034]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized a case where a head-of-household may have children and would want the ability for those children to control some target device that is less significant to household operations/economics/safety as compared to others (e.g., such as attempting control of a TV or room lighting as compared to operating a fireplace, stove or thermostat).
Regarding claim 14
OKAMOTO teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. OKAMOTO also teaches to ignore the second requested command for the target device ([0092]: “if "Taro" selects channel 1 first, channel 2 selected immediately thereafter by "Jiro" is not displayed at all”).
OKAMOTO is not relied on to ignore the requested command based on a determination that the user associated with the command request lacks administrator authority. However, NORTON in an analogous art teaches a digital assistant comprising a controller configured to receive requested commands from multiple users such that conflicting requested commands are resolved based on an authority level and a command is generated for a target device (Abstract: digital assistance (DA) device configured to “determine whether the performance of the first function would conflict with performance of a second function. In response to determining that the performance of the first function would conflict with the performance of the second function, the one or more processors determine whether the source of the voice command has authority to override the second function”, [0030]: DA device comprises controller, [0034]: “external devices may be “smart”-enabled devices with circuitry configured to allow the external devices to be controlled via a hub device (e.g., the DA device 100) within a connected ecosystem”; Fig. 3 #308 “Authority Level”). Specifically, NORTON teaches a case in which “two parents, Mary and George, have the top authority level. Clarence, Violet, and Sam have a middle authority level, and Ernie has the bottom or lowest authority level. The authority levels are used by the DA device 100 to determine whether a particular that submits a voice command has permission to request the DA device 100 perform a specific requested function. For example, with the high authority level have permission to request the DA device 100 to perform certain functions that with mid and bottom authority levels do not have authority to request” ([0060]).
NORTON is analogous art to the claimed invention because NORTON is from the same field of resolving conflicting commands for a target device. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of NORTON to the teachings of OKAMOTO such that one of OKAMOTO’s user #1 and user #2 would have been assigned the top (i.e., administrator) authority level of NORTON such that the conflicting commands could be resolved on the basis of the authority level, as taught by NORTON ([0060]). Additionally, as NORTON teaches that their operation control/DA device can be configured to control household appliances such as fireplaces, HVAC components, and kitchen appliances such as a stove/range or oven (Norton, [0034]), one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized a case where a head-of-household that has the top/administrator authority level may have children and would want the ability for those children to control some target device that is less significant to household operations/economics/safety as compared to others (e.g., such as attempting control of a TV or room lighting as compared to operating a fireplace, stove or thermostat).
Regarding claim 15
OKAMOTO teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. OKAMOTO teaches an operation control device configured to resolve conflicting commands such that a command is generated for a household target device, such as a TV, as outlined above. OKAMOTO is not relied on to teach that other household target devices include lighting equipment, HVAC equipment, or audio equipment. However, NORTON in an analogous art teaches a digital assistant comprising a controller configured to receive requested commands from multiple users such that conflicting requested commands are resolved and a command is generated for a target device (Abstract: digital assistance (DA) device configured to “determine whether the performance of the first function would conflict with performance of a second function. In response to determining that the performance of the first function would conflict with the performance of the second function, the one or more processors determine whether the source of the voice command has authority to override the second function”, [0030]: DA device comprises controller, [0034]: “external devices may be “smart”-enabled devices with circuitry configured to allow the external devices to be controlled via a hub device (e.g., the DA device 100) within a connected ecosystem. Suitable external devices and appliances that may connect to the DA device 100 include lights (e.g., room lighting systems), televisions, audio speakers, fireplace inserts, thermostats and/or other HVAC components, sprinklers, fireplace inserts, kitchen appliances (e.g., stove/range, oven, microwave, refrigerator, etc.), and the like”).
NORTON is analogous art to the claimed invention because NORTON is from the same field of resolving conflicting commands for a target device. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of NORTON to the teachings of OKAMOTO such that OKAMOTO operation control device would have been configured to generate commands for target devices such as audio equipment and HVAC equipment.1
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
DASHEVSKIY (US20150331411A1) teaches a method of shared control strategy for an automated conflict resolution system.
HARIHARAN (US20180101146A1) teaches to determine environmental settings based on a weighted average.
STRANDBERG (US20220113852A1) teaches time-based conflict resolution.2
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 Michael V Farina whose telephone number is (571)272-4982. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 8:00-6:00 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, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571) 272-2279. 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.
/M.V.F./Examiner, Art Unit 2115
/KAMINI S SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2115
1 Examiner’s note: claim 15 further defines the target device, which limits the scope of the material or article being worked upon by the device of claim 1 and does not limit the scope of the device of claim 1 by introducing new structural or functional limitations pertaining to the device. “[t]he including of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. MPEP §2115.
2 STANDBERG [0094] is specifically relevant to the independent claims.
Prosecution Insights