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 .
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 32-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 32 recites “A system for communicating with connected devices in a local environment, the system comprising: a head end controller service”. However, it appears that “a system” and “a head end controller service” combined could be formed without any form of hardware, i.e., software to be downloaded, directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claims 33-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same reason above.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-26 of U.S. Patent No. 9544120. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because, as in the example below, claim 21 of the instant application merely broadens the scope of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 9544120. Claims 22-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting for the same reason.
Instant Application
US 9544120
21. (New) A method of communicating with connected devices in a local environment, the method comprising:
receiving, at a head end controller service, a command intent indicating that a control signal should be sent to a connected device;
sending the control signal to a virtual gateway-enabled personal communication device that is within a local communication protocol transmission distance of the connected device; and
relaying the control signal from the virtual gateway-enabled personal communication device to the connected device.
1. A method for communicating to connected devices in a local environment, the method comprising:
receiving, at a head end controller service comprising a software application executed on a remote server on the Internet, a command intent, the command intent indicating that a control signal for controlling an operation of a local connected device should be sent to the local connected device; wherein a local connected device is local to a particular building environment and communicates via short-range protocols while it remains in the building environment; detecting a plurality of pathways through which the control signal could potentially be sent and relayed, the pathways comprising a plurality of virtual-gateway-enabled personal communication devices, determining a best path through which to send and relay the control signal, wherein determining the best path comprises: checking a speed and a type of connection of two or more of the plurality of virtual-gateway enabled devices and; selecting one of the pathways through which to send and relay the control signal;
sending, via an Internet or cellular data connection, the control signal from the head-end controller service to one of the virtual-gateway-enabled personal communication devices; receiving the control signal at the one of the virtual-gateway-enabled personal communication devices; and
relaying the control signal from the one of the virtual-gateway-enabled personal communication devices to the local connected device via the one or more local radio frequency communication protocols, wherein the one of the virtual-gateway-enabled personal communication devices is local to the building when it receives and relays the control signal and comprises: a commercially available consumer computing device having a graphical user interface, a finite set of hardware components, and primary purposes other than the receiving and the relaying, and a downloadable software application on the computing device that executes the receiving and the relaying using only the finite set of hardware components of the computing device and no other additional hardware external to the computing device, the downloadable software application being: displayable on the graphical user interface, capable of receiving user inputs via the graphical user interface, and capable of executing the receiving and the relaying both when it is displayed and not displayed.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11909686. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because, as in the example below, claim 1 of the instant application merely broadens the scope of claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 11909686 and changing the limitation “immediate command instructions” to “control signal”. However, without further limiting “control signal”, “control signal” is a broader term for “immediate command instruction”. Claims 22-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting for the same reason.
Instant Application
US 11909686
21. A method of communicating with connected devices in a local environment, the method comprising:
sending the control signal to a virtual gateway-enabled personal communication device
relaying the control signal from the virtual gateway-enabled personal communication device to the connected device. (that is within a local communication protocol transmission distance of the connected device; and )
1. A virtual gateway software application executed on a communication device and configured to control functions of at least one connected device that is local to a particular building environment, the virtual gateway software application configured to: receive immediate command instructions for the at least one connected device from each of: a user of the communication device; and a remote server on the Internet via a WAN or a cellular data connection;
relay the immediate command instructions once they are received by the communication device to the at least one connected device via wireless LAN or a short-range communication protocol while the communication device is within the particular building environment; store delayed command instructions for the at least one connected device from each of: the user of the communication device; and the remote server on the Internet via the WAN or the cellular data connection; wherein the relaying of the immediate command instructions or the storing of the delayed command instructions are determined based on state information associated with the communication device or environmental information, wherein the state information or the environmental information comprises one or more of: a movement of the communication device; a time of day; a weather condition; a user activity on the communication device; and a proximity of the communication device to a particular local connected device; and relay one or more of the delayed command instructions from the communication device to the at least one connected device via the wireless LAN or the short-range communication protocol at a predetermined time specified by the one or more delayed command instructions while the communication device is within the particular building environment.
receiving, at a head end controller service, a command intent indicating that a control signal should be sent to a connected device;
2. The virtual gateway software application of claim 1, wherein the virtual gateway software application is further configured to: request both immediate and delayed command instructions from a remote head-end controller service.
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 21, 29, 32, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohn et al. (US 20100277300) in view of PARK et al. (KR 20090090806).
Regarding claims 21 and 32, Cohn teaches receiving, at a head end controller service (Fig. 2, operator domain 160), a command intent indicating that a control signal should be sent to a connected 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);
sending the control signal to a gateway-enabled communication device (Fig. 1, SMA Controller 120, [0029] SMA controller 120 further acts as a gateway interface between home domain 110 and operator domain 160) that is within a local communication protocol transmission distance of the connected device; and relaying the control signal from the gateway-enabled communication device to the 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, the limitation where underlined, virtual gateway-enabled 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).
Regarding claim 29, Cohn teaches wherein sending the control signal to the virtual gateway-enabled personal communication device comprises sending the control signal via a mobile network data connection (Fig. 1, Cellular 154).
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 22-24 and 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 claims 22 and 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 claims 23 and 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 claims 24 and 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).
Claims 25 and 36 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 Kim et al. (US 20150282217).
Regarding claims 25 and 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 26-28, 30, 31, and 27-39 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Vardarajan et al. (US 20210175971) discloses ([0209] When access device 108 seeks to check the status of any device on the network, the access device 108 may transmit/send a communication 1236 to the cloud network 114).
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