CTNF 18/538,854 CTNF 100832 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims This Office Action is responsive to communication filed on 12/13/2023. Claims 1-20 are pending and presented for examination. Title of Invention 37 C.F.R. 1.72 states “The title of the invention may not exceed 500 characters in length and must be as short and specific as possible .” 06-11 AIA The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 6 recites “[…] a transmission source of the new operation information is located within of a predefined area.” However, examiner believes there is a typo and the claim should recite “[…] a transmission source of the new operation information is located within of a predefined area.” Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 5-7 and 12 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 5 Claim 5 recites “new operation information”. However, “new operation information” lacks antecedent basis. MPEP 2173.05(e). Claim 5 recites the “controller is configured to generate the command based on the new operation information in response to a …”. However, this is unclear. Is a new (i.e., second) command being generated or is the first command updated before controlling the target device? Dependent claims 6-7 are likewise rejected. Regarding claim 12 Claim 12 recites “set values”. However, this is new terminology. MPEP 2173.05(a). Claim 12 recites “a first set value corresponding to the first component of operation information” and “a second weight to a second set value corresponding to the second component of operation”. However, this is unclear. Does the first/second set value correspond to a component set in the operation information (i.e., a bit set to a value of 0 to indicate something), or does the first/second set value correspond to a set of bits in the operation information? Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-4 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1) and (a)(2 ) as being anticipated by NOLAN (US20160345414A1) ( hereinafter – “NOLAN” ) . Regarding claim 1 NOLAN teaches a device configured to: receive a component of operation information from each of a plurality of user terminals, each component of operation information indicating a requested command for a target device ( [0045]: lighting system “controller 22 is arranged to receive requests from the mobile user terminal 13” in order to control light sources (i.e., target device) ; [0046]: controller 22 comprises control policy selection logic 40; [0049]: “control policy selection logic 40 is arranged to receive […] an indication of the user's requested operation”; [0059]: “control policy selection logic 40 may additionally be configured […] to deal with the possibility that two or more users […] both attempt conflicting operations at the same time”); generate a command for the target device based on the components of operation information ( [0045]: “Based on these signals, the controller 22 is further arranged to output control commands to the light sources”, i.e., “based on these signals” implies a determination is made to generate a control command; [0059]: controller configured to apply multi-user arbitration rules ); and control the target device in accordance with the generated command ( [0045]: “controller 22 is further arranged to output control commands to the light sources 8”). Regarding claim 2 NOLAN teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. NOLAN also teaches wherein the controller is configured to: determine a priority order for the components of operation information based on information regarding a user who is a transmission source of each of the components of operation information ( [0059]: “control policy selection logic 40 may additionally be configured to apply one or more multi-user arbitration rules to deal with the possibility that two or more users […] both attempt conflicting operations at the same time”); and generate the command based on the priority order ( [0059]: based on multi-user arbitration rules “the control policy selection logic 40 may […] moderate the application of a control policy in accordance with one or more arbitration rules”). Regarding claim 3 NOLAN teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. NOLAN also teaches wherein the controller is configured to generate the command based on (a) the components of operating information and (b) information regarding a location of a user who is a transmission source of each of the components of operation information ( [0059]: “control policy selection logic 40 may additionally be configured to apply one or more multi- user arbitration rules 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. Any of the above sensing and detection operations may be applied for detecting the position of one or more other users in the space 4. Based on this, the control policy selection logic 40 may be configured to determine the relative position (relative distance and/or orientation) between two or more users requesting lighting control operations, and to moderate the application of a control policy in accordance with the one or more arbitration rules […] E.g. if one or more other users would be affected more greatly by the operation of one or some of those light sources (e.g. because they are closer),then such light sources may be excluded from those being controlled in the space 4”). Regarding claim 4 NOLAN teaches the elements of claim 3 as outlined above. NOLAN also teaches wherein the controller is configured to generate the command based on information regarding a location where the target device is installed ( [0051]: “commissioning database 32 contains the respective locations of the commissioned light sources […] The locations of the light sources 8 in the commissioning database 32 may thus be used by the control policy logic 40”). Regarding claim 15 NOLAN teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. NOLAN also teaches wherein the target device includes at least one of air condition equipment, cooling equipment, heating equipment, a humidifier, a dehumidifier, lighting equipment, light shield equipment, a water heater, or audio equipment ( [0045]: “FIG. 4 is a schematic block diagram of a lighting system including control functionality”). Regarding claim 16 Claim 16 is a method claim reciting substantially the same limitations as claim 1 and is rejected as per claim 1. Regarding claim 17 NOLAN 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 claim 2. Regarding claim 18 NOLAN 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 claim 3. Regarding claim 19 NOLAN 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 claim 4. Regarding claim 20 NOLAN teaches: a target device ( [0045]: “The lighting system comprises the one or more wireless transceivers 15, the light sources 8 , and a controller 22”); a first user device configured to receive a first requested command for the target device from a first user ( [0045]: “controller 22 is arranged to receive requests from the mobile user terminal 13 via the wireless transceiver 15”); a second user device configured to receive a second requested command for the target device from a second user ( [0045]: mobile user terminal 13; [0059] : multi-user arbitration rules to deal with two or more users attempting control of device at same time implies a second mobile user terminal configured to receive a second requested command for the target device from a second user ); an operation control device operatively coupled to the target device, the first user device, and the second user device and comprising a controller ( [0045]: controller receives requests from mobile user terminal; [0059]: multi-user arbitration implies controller receiving requests from more than one mobile user terminal ) configured to: receive the first requested command and the second requested command ( [0045]: lighting system “controller 22 is arranged to receive requests from the mobile user terminal 13” in order to control light sources (i.e., target device) ; [0046]: controller 22 comprises control policy selection logic 40; [0049]: “control policy selection logic 40 is arranged to receive […] an indication of the user's requested operation”; [0059]: “control policy selection logic 40 may additionally be configured […] to deal with the possibility that two or more users […] both attempt conflicting operations at the same time”); generate a command for the target device based on the first requested command, the second requested command, information regarding the first user, and information regarding the second user ( [0045]: “Based on these signals, the controller 22 is further arranged to output control commands to the light sources”, i.e., “based on these signals” implies a determination is made to generate a control command; [0059]: controller configured to apply multi-user arbitration rules “control policy selection logic 40 may additionally be configured to apply one or more multi-user arbitration rules to deal with the possibility that two or more users […] both attempt conflicting operations at the same time”); and control the target device in accordance with the generated command ( [0059]: based on multi-user arbitration rules “the control policy selection logic 40 may […] moderate the application of a control policy in accordance with one or more arbitration rules”) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NOLAN in view of KATH (US5927599A) ( hereinafter – “NOLAN-KATH” ) . Regarding claim 5 NOLAN teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. NOLAN is not relied on for the remaining limitations. However, KATH in analogous art teaches wherein in response to receiving new operation information, the controller is configured to generate the command based on the new operation information and operation information received within a predetermined period of time before the new operation information is received ( Col. 10, ll. 5-30: controller operates a three-minute hold-off timer to prevent excessive power cycling of target device, “when the relay 16 is deactivated by the controller 92, the controller initializes a three-minute hold-off period. During this time, controller 92 will not reactivate relay 16, even if instructed to do so by an air condition request signal”). 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 KATH to the teachings of NOLAN such that KATH’s hold-off period could be used with NOLAN’s controller comprising control policy selection logic for the purposes of preventing the controller from damaging a target device by excessive power cycling. Regarding claim 6 NOLAN-KATH teaches the elements of claim 5 as outlined above. NOLAN also teaches wherein the controller is configured to generate the command based on the new operation information in response to a determination that a user who is a transmission source of the new operation information is located within of a predefined area ( [0027]: “selection of the control policy may depend on which of a plurality of predetermined zones the user is found to be located in”). Regarding claim 7 NOLAN-KATH teaches the elements of claim 6 as outlined above. PNG media_image1.png 340 405 media_image1.png Greyscale NOLAN, Fig. 3 NOLAN also teaches wherein the predefined area contains the target device ( Fig. 3 shows a user 13 inside of a predefined area 4 containing a target device 8 ) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NOLAN . Regarding claim 8 NOLAN teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. NOLAN does not explicitly teach wherein the controller is configured to ignore a new requested command for the target device in response to a determination that a user who is a transmission source of the new requested command is located outside of a predefined area. However, NOLAN does teach a controller configured to perform a user arbitration process such that the controller is configured to ignore a new requested command for the target device in response to a determination that a user who is a transmission source of the new requested command is located outside of a predefined area further away from the target device than a user who is a transmission source of the previous requested command ( [0059]: “control policy selection logic 40 may additionally be configured to apply one or more multi- user arbitration rules 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 […] E.g. if one or more other users would be affected more greatly by the operation of one or some of those light sources (e.g. because they are closer),then such light sources may be excluded from those being controlled in the space 4 ”). NOLAN also teaches wherein the controller implements control polices according to a user being located within a predefined area ( [0052]: “control policies maybe created by the administrator to define a plurality of different types of responses the lighting system may be configured to have (e.g. local vs. macro control, and/or uniform vs. brightness distribution) in response to one or more kinds of user input that may be entered via the mobile terminal 13, and to associate these with various zones within the area where users are to have control of the lighting system. Zones or other positional demarcations may be defined in a number of ways, e.g. based on the light sources 8 within the user’s field of view, and/or based on the proximity to the nearest light source 8.”; [0053]: “ Based on the mapping in the control policy database 30, the detected position from the positioning logic 38, and the requested operation received via the communication logic 37, the control policy selection logic 40 selects the policy mapped to the detected position and user input by the policy database 30 . Further, the selection logic 40 may dynamically switch between control policies according to the operating context (as the user moves between zones, faces in different directions, and/or performs different user inputs).”). NOLAN teaches a controller that is configured to generate a command based on a location of a user requesting a command. NOLAN also teaches the concept of defining a zone and/or a positional demarcation based on a user’s proximity to the target device. NOLAN also teaches a user-arbitration process configured to allow control of a target device by a user that is more proximal to the target device than a second user. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the user arbitration rules such that a new requested command by a user who is outside of a zone (i.e., located outside of a predefined area) containing a target device, as dictated by positional demarcations, would be ignored for the purposes of allowing a user within the zone, containing the target device, to control the target device. Regarding claim 9 NOLAN teaches the elements of claim 8 as outlined above. NOLAN also teaches wherein the predefined area contains the target device ( Fig. 3 shows a user 13 inside of a predefined area 4 containing a target device 8 ) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NOLAN in view of MAGIELSE (US20200128653A1) ( hereinafter – “NOLAN-MAGIELSE” ) . Regarding claim 10 NOLAN teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. NOLAN also teaches to determine a priority order for the components of operation information based on a time when each component of operation information is received ( [0059]: “control policy selection logic 40 may additionally be configured to apply one or more multi-user arbitration rules to deal with the possibility that two or more users […] both attempt conflicting operations at the same time”); and generate the command based on the priority order ( [0059]: based on multi-user arbitration rules “the control policy selection logic 40 may […] moderate the application of a control policy in accordance with one or more arbitration rules”); NOLAN is not relied on to determine a priority order for the components of operation information based on a time when each component of operation is received. However, MAGIELSE in analogous art teaches this claim limitation ( [0054]: “priority levels in the hierarchy may be assigned associated numerical values which can then be used when determining the importance of a command.”; [0055]: “ commands may also be assigned an associated relevance factor . The relevance factor may be considered a measure of how the importance of a received command should be perceived. The relevance factor may also be referred to as a weighting. In some embodiments the relevance factor may vary over time. For example the importance of a command can reduce over time .”; [0056]: “ relevance factor is useful in that it enables the system to be dynamic in determining whether an action should take place or not ”). 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 MAGIELSE to the teachings of NOLAN such that MAGIELSE’s relevance factor that reduces over time could be used with NOLAN’s multi-user arbitration system for the purposes of allowing a second user of lower priority to control a device sometime after a first user of higher priority controlled the device. Regarding claim 11 NOLAN-MAGIELSE teaches the elements of claim 10 as outlined above. MAGIELSE also teaches wherein the controller is configured to assign a first component of operation information a lower priority than a second component of operation information in response to a determination that the first component of operation information was received before the second component of operation information ( Fig. 3, [0059]: first control command is received; [0061]: second control command is received; [0062]: “step comprises determining whether the second command should override the first command. For example this step may comprise comparing a value associated with the first command with a value associated with the second command” , i.e., compare relevance factors that comprises a weight associated with when a time was received ( [0056] “importance of command can reduce over time” ); [0063]: based on outcome of [0062] determination “the second command is selectively executed”) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NOLAN-MAGIELSE in view of LEFEVRE (US20180136950A1) . Regarding claim 12 NOLAN-MAGIELSE teaches the elements of claim 11 as outlined above. LEFEVRE teaches in an analogous art wherein the controller is to generate the command based on a weight average of set values identified in the requested commands, wherein the controller is configured to assign a first weight to a first set value corresponding to a the first component of operation information, wherein the controller is configured to assign a second weigh to a second set value corresponding to the second component of operation information, and wherein the first weight is smaller than the second weight ( [0024]-[0031]: settings negotiation (i.e., user arbitration) 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 NOLAN-MAGIELSE such that LEFEVRE’s weighted mean could be used with NOLAN-MAGIELSE’s relevance factor determination for the purposes of determining which command should be prioritized to be generated . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NOLAN in view of VANGEEL (US20170311418A1) . Regarding claim 13 NOLAN teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. NOLAN also teaches wherein the controller is configured to generate the command based on (a) the components of information and (b) information regarding an authority level of a user who is a transmission source of each of the components of operation information ( [0059]: based on multi-user arbitration rules “the control policy selection logic 40 may […] moderate the application of a control policy in accordance with one or more arbitration rules”); NOLAN is not relied on for generating the command based on information regarding an authority level of a user. However, VENGEEL in analogous art teaches generating a control command based on information regarding an authority level of a user ( Fig. 21 block 2120 the yes/no determination resulting from block 2120 implies comparing an authority level to an authority threshold ). PNG media_image2.png 723 724 media_image2.png Greyscale VENGEEL, Fig. 7 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 VENGEEL to the teachings of NOLAN such that VENGEEL’s authorization subroutine could be implemented in NOLAN’s controller for the purposes of determining the multi-user arbitration ( e.g., if user A is not authorized and user B is authorized then all other computations can be forgone and user B’s command is implemented). Regarding claim 14 NOLAN teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. NOLAN also teaches wherein the controller is configured to ignore a new requested command for the target device in response to a determination that a user who is a transmission source of the new requested command lacks administrator authority ( [0059]: “control policy selection logic 40 may additionally be configured to apply one or more multi- user arbitration rules 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 […] E.g. if one or more other users would be affected more greatly by the operation of one or some of those light sources (e.g. because they are closer),then such light sources may be excluded from those being controlled in the space 4 ”). NOLAN is not relied on to ignore a new requested command for the target device in response to a determination that a user who is a transmission source of the new requested command lacks administrator authority. However, VENGEEL teaches determining that a user who is a transmission source of a requested command lacks administrator authority ( Fig. 21 block 2130 “ignore received control request” if user is not authorized to request personal control ). 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 VENGEEL to the teachings of NOLAN such that VENGEEL’s administrator authority subroutine could be implemented in NOLAN’s controller for the purposes of determining the multi-user arbitration ( e.g., if user A is not an administrator and user B is an administrator then all other computations can be forgone and user B’s command is implemented) . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Windridge (US20160180617A1) teaches methods and apparatus for granting control of a shared-access system. Ishiyama (US20240090106A1) teaches priority control system for an operation target device configured to receive operation request information from a plurality of operation devices. Imes (US20200103130A9) teaches a second control request being assigned a higher priority than a first ([0258]). Schwaibold (US20220058147A1) teaches that a more recent request for control is assigned a higher priority ([0081]). Yamada (US20150277409A1) teaches user authority levels for control command generation determination (Fig. 7). 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 Application/Control Number: 18/538,854 Page 2 Art Unit: 2115 Application/Control Number: 18/538,854 Page 3 Art Unit: 2115 Application/Control Number: 18/538,854 Page 4 Art Unit: 2115 Application/Control Number: 18/538,854 Page 5 Art Unit: 2115 Application/Control Number: 18/538,854 Page 6 Art Unit: 2115 Application/Control Number: 18/538,854 Page 7 Art Unit: 2115 Application/Control Number: 18/538,854 Page 8 Art Unit: 2115 Application/Control Number: 18/538,854 Page 9 Art Unit: 2115 Application/Control Number: 18/538,854 Page 10 Art Unit: 2115 Application/Control Number: 18/538,854 Page 11 Art Unit: 2115 Application/Control Number: 18/538,854 Page 12 Art Unit: 2115 Application/Control Number: 18/538,854 Page 13 Art Unit: 2115 Application/Control Number: 18/538,854 Page 14 Art Unit: 2115 Application/Control Number: 18/538,854 Page 15 Art Unit: 2115 Application/Control Number: 18/538,854 Page 16 Art Unit: 2115