DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
A response was received on 25 June 2025. As noted in the interview summary mailed 27 August 2025, these amendments were not fully compliant with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.121(c)(2), and the Examiner requested that Applicant file a supplemental response correcting the issues of non-compliance.
A supplemental response was received on 05 September 2025. By this response, Claims 1-9 and 11-19 have been amended. Claims 10 and 20 have been canceled. New Claims 21 and 22 have been added. Claims 1-9, 11-19, 21, and 22 are currently pending in the present application. The supplemental amendment has been entered as per 37 CFR 1.111(b)(2)(i) as directed to correction of informalities.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 25 June 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
It is noted that Applicant’s summary of the interview conducted 16 June 2025 unintentionally omits the discussion of a potential restriction by original presentation due to the shift of the proposed amendments to a nonelected species. See the interview summary mailed 20 June 2025.
Although Applicant argues that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is moot in view of the amendments (pages 8-9 of the 25 June 2025 response), it is noted that not all issues set forth in the previous Office action have been addressed, and the amendments have raised new issues of indefiniteness, as detailed below.
Further, Applicant’s arguments fail to comply with the requirement of 37 CFR 1.111(b) that Applicant must reply to every ground of objection and rejection in the prior Office action. In particular, Applicant does not appear to have acknowledged or responded to the rejection of Claims 3, 13, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form.
Therefore, for the reasons detailed above, the Examiner maintains the rejections as set forth below.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Claims 1 and 11 have been amended to recite receiving an event notification at a mediating device from a network operation center (NOC) computing device; routing event data to the NOC computing device; the NOC computing device performing pattern matching to determine that event data triggers activity on one or more personal devices to take actions with respect to the event; and the NOC computing device transmitting commands to secondary devices. However, there is not clear description in the specification of the mediating device and NOC device performing these specific functions, nor is there clear description of a method or system that combines the functions of the device mediation and NOC mediation species as separately described. Additionally, Claims 8 and 18 have been amended to recite receiving a list of one or more secondary devices assigned by the NOC computing device. However, there is no description of “secondary devices” in the specification. Therefore, there is not clearly sufficient antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter in the specification. For further detail, see below with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for failure to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection of Claims 10 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite is moot in light of the cancellation of the claims. The rejection of Claims 1-9 and 11-19 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and the rejection of Claims 3, 13, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent for are NOT withdrawn, because not all issues have been addressed and/or because the amendments have raised new issues, as detailed below.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-9, 11-19, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 11 have been amended to recite receiving an event notification at a mediating device from a network operation center (NOC) computing device; routing event data to the NOC computing device; the NOC computing device performing pattern matching to determine that event data triggers activity on one or more personal devices to take actions with respect to the event; and the NOC computing device transmitting commands to secondary devices. However, there is not clear description in the specification of the mediating device and NOC device performing these specific functions, nor is there clear description of a method or system that combines the functions of the device mediation and NOC mediation species as separately described. Although Applicant has cited paragraph 0005 and 0016-0018 for support of the claims as amended (see page 8 of the 25 June 2025 response), there is not clear description of the claimed subject matter as amended in these paragraphs. First, paragraph 0016 is directed to the direct subscription species (see also Figure 4 and paragraph 0046-0047 and 0055-0056, where various actions of a subscriber device are described). Further, although the specification discloses that a mediating device can receive event notifications from one or more personal devices, or that the NOC computing device can receive event notifications from a personal device (see paragraph 0005), there is not clear disclosure of receiving event notifications at a mediating device from the NOC computing device. Although the specification discloses that a mediating device may route an event to an event handler (paragraph 0017; see also paragraphs 0048 and 0060), there is not clear disclosure of routing event data to the NOC. Although the specification discloses the mediating device determining whether an event triggers activity on personal devices and the mediating device transmitting commands (paragraph 0017; see also paragraphs 0048 and 0061) and the NOC device performing pattern matching on event data (paragraph 0018; see also paragraphs 0050 and 0065), there is not clear disclosure of the pattern matching being performed to determine whether the event triggers activity on personal devices, nor is there clear disclosure of the NOC device determining whether the event triggers activity on personal devices or the NOC device transmitting commands. There is also no description in the specification that an embodiment which combines elements of the three different models (direct subscription, device mediation, and NOC mediation) as separately described (compare Figures 4-6 and paragraphs 0005, 0016-0018, 0046-0051, and 0055-0066). Additionally, there appears to be no mention in the cited paragraphs or elsewhere in the specification of “secondary devices”. Therefore, there is not clearly sufficient written description of the claimed subject matter in the specification.
Claims 8 and 18 have been amended to recite receiving a list of one or more secondary devices assigned by the NOC computing device. However, there is no description of “secondary devices” in the specification, and therefore, there can be no disclosure of a list of secondary devices. Therefore, there is not clearly sufficient written description of the claimed subject matter in the specification.
Claims not explicitly referred to above are rejected due to their dependence on a rejected base claim.
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 1-9, 11-19, 21, and 22 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.
Claim 1 recites “that is stored by the NOC computing device” in lines 6-7. From the placement of the phrase, it appears that this is intended to modify the personal device, but it is not clear how the personal device would be stored by the NOC computing device. The claim further recites “at least one event data” in lines 7-8. Because “data” is not a countable noun, it is not clear how to have one data or more than one data. The claim additionally recites “perform pattern matching of the event notification to determine that the at least one event data triggers activity on one or more personal devices to take one or more actions with respect to the event” in lines 19-21. First, the phrase “a pattern matching of the event notification” is not clear what the event notification is compared or matched to in order to determine whether it matches a pattern. Further, it is not clear whether “one or more personal devices” includes the personal device of line 4. Additionally, because there are references to event data in the plural, it is not clear to which event the phrase “the event” is intended to refer. Still further, although the claim recites an action to be performed in response to determining that the event data triggers activity, there is no action recited if it is determined that the event data does not trigger activity, which constitutes a gap in the claim. The claim also recites transmitting “commands to one or more secondary devices” in line 23. First, it is not clear what these commands are for. Further, it is not clear whether the secondary devices are the same as the personal devices recited earlier in the claims. The above ambiguities render the claim indefinite.
Claim 2 recites “performing a key exchange with the NOC computing device to receive the secret key at a subscriber device”. However, because the method is from the perspective of steps performed at the mediating device, it is not clear what role the mediating device has in this key exchange.
Claim 4 recites “the event” in line 3. However, because there is potentially plural event data recited in Claim 1, it is not clear to which of the plural events this is intended to refer.
Claim 5 recites “the event” in line 2. However, because there is potentially plural event data recited in Claim 1, it is not clear to which of the plural events this is intended to refer.
Claim 6 recites “the personal device” in lines 2 and 4. However, because Claim 1 recited plural personal devices, it is not clear to which of the plural devices these limitations are intended to refer. Claim 6 further recites “the secret key that the personal device obtained from the NOC computing device via a key exchange” in lines 3-4. Although Claim 1 previously recited a secret key, there is not clear antecedent basis in the claims for the additional details.
Claim 7 recites “the personal device” in line 2. However, because Claim 1 recited plural personal devices, it is not clear to which of the plural devices these limitations are intended to refer.
Claim 8 recites “a list of the one or more secondary devices assigned by the NOC computing device” in lines 2-3. Although Claim 1 recited one or more secondary devices, there is not clear antecedent basis for this more detailed limitation in the claims.
Claim 9 recites “the personal device” in line 2. However, because Claim 1 recited plural personal devices, it is not clear to which of the plural devices these limitations are intended to refer.
Claim 11 recites “receive, at a mediating device” in line 5. It is not clear whether the mediating device corresponds to or is the claimed system, or if it is separate. The claim further recites “that is stored by the NOC computing device” in lines 9-10. From the placement of the phrase, it appears that this is intended to modify the personal device, but it is not clear how the personal device would be stored by the NOC computing device. The claim additionally recites “at least one event data” in lines 10-11. Because “data” is not a countable noun, it is not clear how to have one data or more than one data. The claim further recites “the NOC being configured to” in lines 21-22. However, it is not clear whether the NOC or NOC computing system is an element of the claimed system or whether these provide further limitations on the claimed system. The claim additionally recites “perform pattern matching of the event notification to determine that the at least one event data triggers activity on one or more personal devices to take one or more actions with respect to the event” in lines 23-25. First, the phrase “a pattern matching of the event notification” is not clear what the event notification is compared or matched to in order to determine whether it matches a pattern. Further, it is not clear whether “one or more personal devices” includes the personal device of line 7. Additionally, because there are references to event data in the plural, it is not clear to which event the phrase “the event” is intended to refer. Still further, although the claim recites an action to be performed in response to determining that the event data triggers activity, there is no action recited if it is determined that the event data does not trigger activity, which constitutes a gap in the claim. The claim also recites transmitting “commands to one or more secondary devices” in line 27. First, it is not clear what these commands are for. Further, it is not clear whether the secondary devices are the same as the personal devices recited earlier in the claims. The above ambiguities render the claim indefinite.
Claim 12 recites that the processors are further configured to perform a key exchange in lines 1-2. However, there is not previous recitation of the configuration of the processors. It appears that system further comprises instructions that when executed cause the processors to perform the key exchange. The claim further recites “performing a key exchange with the NOC computing device to receive the secret key at a subscriber device”. However, because the system appears to correspond to the mediating device, it is not clear what role the mediating device has in this key exchange.
Claim 13 recites that the processors are further configured to perform no action in lines 1-2. However, there is not previous recitation of the configuration of the processors. It appears that system further comprises instructions that when executed cause the processors to perform the key exchange.
Claim 14 recites that the system comprises using an event handler of the NOC to handle the event. It is not clear how a system would include a step of using the event handler, although it appears that this may be intended to recite that the system further comprises instructions that when executed cause the processors to use the event handler. The claim further recites “the event” in line 3. However, because there is potentially plural event data recited in Claim 11, it is not clear to which of the plural events this is intended to refer.
Claim 15 recites “the event” in line 2. However, because there is potentially plural event data recited in Claim 11, it is not clear to which of the plural events this is intended to refer.
Claim 16 recites “the personal device” in lines 2 and 4. However, because Claim 11 recited plural personal devices, it is not clear to which of the plural devices these limitations are intended to refer. Claim 16 further recites “the secret key that the personal device obtained from the NOC computing device via a key exchange” in lines 3-4. Although Claim 11 previously recited a secret key, there is not clear antecedent basis in the claims for the additional details.
Claim 17 recites “the personal device” in line 2. However, because Claim 11 recited plural personal devices, it is not clear to which of the plural devices these limitations are intended to refer.
Claim 18 recites that the processors are further configured to receive a list in lines 1-2. However, there is not previous recitation of the configuration of the processors. It appears that system further comprises instructions that when executed cause the processors to perform the key exchange. The claim further recites “a list of the one or more secondary devices assigned by the NOC computing device” in lines 2-3. Although Claim 11 recited one or more secondary devices, there is not clear antecedent basis for this more detailed limitation in the claims.
Claim 19 recites “the personal device” in line 2. However, because Claim 11 recited plural personal devices, it is not clear to which of the plural devices these limitations are intended to refer.
Claim 21 recites “the events” in line 2. Although Claim 1 recites an event or event data, there is not clear antecedent basis in the claim for plural events.
Claim 22 recites “the events” in line 2. Although Claim 11 recites an event or event data, there is not clear antecedent basis in the claim for plural events.
Claims not explicitly referred to above are rejected due to their dependence on a rejected base claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 3, 13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 3 recites performing no action. Because it does not recite any further steps, this does not provide a further limitation on the method of Claim 1 from which it depends.
Claim 13 recites performing no action. Because it does not clearly recite any further programming or instruction or implementing any particular action, this does not provide a further limitation on the system of Claim 11 from which it depends.
Claim 17 recites that a personal device can be one of several options of devices. However, the personal devices are not recited as elements of the system of Claim 11, and therefore limitations on the personal devices do not clearly further limit the system of Claim 11 from which Claim 17 depends.
Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims to place the claims in proper dependent form, rewrite the claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims comply with the statutory requirements.
Examiner’s Note
Because the claims are rendered indefinite and not clearly supported based on the numerous issues as detailed above in reference to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), (b), and (d), it has not been possible to fully construe pending Claims 1-20 for novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102 and non-obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103. As per MPEP § 2173.06 II, if there is uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. See also In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962). A search has been performed to the extent possible, and references that appear to be relevant were cited in the previous Office action.
Conclusion
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 Zachary A Davis whose telephone number is (571)272-3870. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00am-5:30pm, Eastern Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Rupal D Dharia can be reached at (571) 272-3880. 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.
/Zachary A. Davis/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2492