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, see page 10, filed 6/22/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of 35 U.S.C. 101 has been withdrawn. However, Applicant's arguments on pages 11 and 12 with respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues on pages 11 and 12 ‘The combination of Cohn and Park also does not disclose or teach " an application or service on the personal communication device that configures the personal communication device to allow the personal communication device to relay the control signal from the head end controller service through the personal communication device to a connected device" as recited in amended claim 32’. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In order to function as a tunneling gateway interface, it is inherent in PARK that “an application or service on the personal communication device that configures the personal communication device to allow the personal communication device to relay the control signal from the head end controller service through the personal communication device to a connected device”. PARK further discloses FIG. 1 - FIG. 3. The underlined limitation above does not carry much weight for patentability. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 32 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being Regarding claim
Regarding claim 32, Cohn teaches a head end controller service server (Fig. 1, operator domain 160) configured to:
receive a command intent (Fig. 4 and [0059] A user can select widgets corresponding to desired functionality. Embodiments of the present invention provide for access to widgets via portal server 170);
generate a control signal; and send the control signal to a communication device (Fig. 4 and [0059] A user can select widgets corresponding to desired functionality. Embodiments of the present invention provide for access to widgets via portal server 170); and
an application or service on the communication device that configures the communication device to allow the communication device to relay the control signal from the head end controller service through the communication device to a connected device ([0033] to configure and control home security devices (e.g., 130 and 135), monitoring devices 140 and automation devices 145, by providing a gateway to remote control via servers in operator domain 160, it is inherent that sending the control signal to a gateway-enabled communication device and relaying the control signal to the connected device).
Cohn, however, does not expressly teach, send the control signal to a personal communication device, an application or service on the personal communication device, relay the control signal from the head end controller service through the personal communication device. PARK teaches Fig. 3, the mobile terminal 300 performs communication with the 310, and in ADVANTAGEOUS-EFFECTS section, PARK further teaches the EDS in the form of a virtual interface in the mobile terminal, thereby reducing the burden of installing the EDS for each network, by using the home network address information previously stored in the mobile terminal can be used as it is in the generated virtual tunneling gateway interface. PARK further discloses FIG. 1 - FIG. 3. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine with PARK’s virtual interface in the mobile terminal in order to avoid the initial network installation cost (BACKGROUND-ART, PARK).
Regarding claim 40, Cohn teaches wherein the head end controller service is further configured to send a control signal to the application or service on the communication device via a mobile network data connection (Fig. 1, Cellular 154). Cohn does not expressly teach the application or service on the personal communication device. PARK teaches Fig. 3, the mobile terminal 300 performs communication with the 310, and in ADVANTAGEOUS-EFFECTS section, PARK further teaches the EDS in the form of a virtual interface in the mobile terminal, thereby reducing the burden of installing the EDS for each network, by using the home network address information previously stored in the mobile terminal can be used as it is in the generated virtual tunneling gateway interface. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine with PARK’s virtual interface in the mobile terminal in order to avoid the initial network installation cost (BACKGROUND-ART, PARK).
Claims 33-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohn et al. (US 20100277300) modified by PARK et al. (KR 20090090806), and further in view of An (US 20030085795).
Regarding claim 33, neither Cohn nor PARK teaches wherein receiving the command intent further comprises: receiving state or environmental information specifying that a particular control signal should be sent to a particular connected device, the state or environmental information comprising one or more of:a movement of the personal communication device; a time of day; a weather condition; a user activity on the personal communication device; and a proximity of the personal communication device to the particular connected device. An teaches [0030] if an activation instruction for another electric home appliance is received, the gateway processor 20 stands by without transmitting the activation instruction to another electric home appliance until the first electric home appliance is activated (i.e., is in an active/function executed state). Then, when a predetermined period of time elapses after the gateway processor 20 transmits the activation instruction to the first electric home appliance. An further teaches Fig. 3, USER interface terminal commanding APPLIANCEs 10A 10B,… 10K. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine with An in order to sequentially activate a plurality of electric home appliances to prevent the electric home appliances from being simultaneously activated ([0003], An).
Regarding claim 34, neither Cohn nor PARK teaches wherein the command intent comprises one or more commands programmed by a user to occur at a pre-determined time. An teaches [0030] if an activation instruction for another electric home appliance is received, the gateway processor 20 stands by without transmitting the activation instruction to another electric home appliance until the first electric home appliance is activated (i.e., is in an active/function executed state). Then, when a predetermined period of time elapses after the gateway processor 20 transmits the activation instruction to the first electric home appliance. An further teaches Fig. 3, USER interface terminal commanding APPLIANCEs 10A 10B,… 10K. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine with An in order to sequentially activate a plurality of electric home appliances to prevent the electric home appliances from being simultaneously activated ([0003], An).
Regarding claim 35, neither Cohn nor PARK teaches wherein the control signal is stored at the personal communication device for a period of time before being relayed to the connected device. An teaches [0030] if an activation instruction for another electric home appliance is received, the gateway processor 20 stands by without transmitting the activation instruction to another electric home appliance until the first electric home appliance is activated (i.e., is in an active/function executed state). Then, when a predetermined period of time elapses after the gateway processor 20 transmits the activation instruction to the first electric home appliance. An further teaches Fig. 3, USER interface terminal commanding APPLIANCEs 10A 10B,… 10K. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine with An in order to sequentially activate a plurality of electric home appliances to prevent the electric home appliances from being simultaneously activated ([0003], An).
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohn et al. (US 20100277300) modified by PARK et al. (KR 20090090806), and further in view of Kim et al. (US 20150282217).
Regarding claim 36, neither Cohn nor PARK teaches wherein the control signal is stored at the personal communication device and is sent to the connected device repeatedly. Kim discloses Fig. 5, Fig. 6 and [0069] The various actions described herein can be repeated as appropriate for each known device stored in a cache of the network device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the control signal is stored being sent to the connected device repeatedly, as disclosed in Kim, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working part of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-31 are allowed.
Claims 37-39 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and upon timely filed terminal disclaimers.
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 EUNSOOK CHOI whose telephone number is (571)270-1822. The examiner can normally be reached on 8am-4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hassan Phillips can be reached on 5712723940. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EUNSOOK CHOI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2467
