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 with respect to claim(s) 19-23 and 26-38 have been 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph 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 19-23 and 26-38 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 claim(s) contains 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.
Written Description Issue #1
Claims 19, 24, and 26 feature the following limitation:
receive, by the device, a second user operation to combine the first control and the second control into a third control in response to the second user operation, wherein Z is a positive integer, wherein the second user operation comprises at least the user touching one of the first control or the second control,
The applicant did not disclose how to combine first and second controls into a third control. The independent claims define the controls as displayed elements that a user interacts with to perform operations on. As shown in the applicant’s figures, these are GUI elements. There is no disclosure of how two GUI elements would be “combined” in order to produce a third GUI element. The applicant disclosed that functions that are represented by GUI elements can be combined and such a combination of functions, usable together, can be accessed using another GUI element. There is no disclosure of merging the GUI elements that represent the individual functions into a single GUI element as claimed and it is not even clear what the claimed combination, to arrive at the “third control” would even comprise. This is described in paragraph 88. Paragraphs 336, 381-383, 386, 390, 394, 413, 420, 423, 427, 430-434, and 449 provide examples of what the applicant has disclosed regarding functional combinations and their relationships to display elements.
Written Description Issue #2
Claim 27 covers an operation to combine a first card and a second card into a third card and then displaying the third card. The applicant has not described how a first and second card would be combined into a third card. Figure 13B shows a finger swiping a first card towards a second card but these cards are not disclosed as “combined”. Instead, Figure 13C shows that information that was on each of the first and second cards is now displayed in a third card.
Written Description Issue #3
Claim 30 covers separating a control into two controls. The applicant has actually disclosed, in paragraph 302, that a group of lights that were once controlled by a single GUI element together can be controlled by separate GUI elements for each light. There is no disclosure that the single group GUI element is “separated” to form the GUI elements for the individual lights, as covered by the claim.
Written Description Issue #4
Claim 31 covers separating cards. In paragraph 417, the applicant disclosed that devices that can be controlled with a combined view of two rooms can also be controlled separately using differing groupings via a different interface. This different interface has nothing to do with “separating” the combined room card into a third card because it is disclosed as a distinct interface.
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 19-23 and 26-38 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 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: It is not clear what the relationship is between the displayed “second control” and the phrases “wherein Y is a positive integer, wherein a second device group comprises the Y home devices, wherein the Y home devices are in a second space and are configured to provide a second function”. The language does not tie the “Y home devices” to the displayed “second control” in any manner.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: the first user operation “comprises at least a user touching the first control” and the second user operation “comprises at least the user touching one of the first control and the second control”. It is unclear how the “first user operation” and “second user operation” are different if they both can comprise only the user touching the first control.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: The claims covering “receiving, by the device, a second user operation to combine the first control and the second control into a third control” and then they covering displaying the “third control” but the claims do not actually recite any step of actually acting in response to the received second user operation to actually create the third control so that it can be displayed.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: The applicant omits the step of creating the “third control instruction” that is sent in response to the third user operation being performed on the third control. In the claim, the third control is dynamically created based on the reception of the “second user operation” so the “third control instruction” would have to be dynamically created dependent upon which home devices end up forming the “Z home devices” group and what their control properties are, as presumably, the X and Y home devices can have differing control instructions.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: the applicant recites “a third control instruction” which implies there is a “second control instruction” but fails to define any “second control instruction” in the claim.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: the applicant claims that the “fourth user operation” that is received by the device is “performed on the second control” but then the applicant defines “the fourth user operation comprises at least the user touching the fourth control”. It is unclear what the relationship is between the claimed “fourth user operation”, the “second control”, and the “fourth control”.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the V home devices in the first space". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the at least one home device" in each of the “comprises one or more of” alternatives. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim previously recites multiple home devices and groups of home devices so it is not clear which “home device” or “home devices” the applicant is trying to cover.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the V home devices" in the final wherein clause. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The applicant defines “V” as a positive integer but does not actually define the “V” home devices.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the device information of the X home devices" in “wherein information of at least one home device in the device information of the X home devices comprises one or more of” limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The applicant does not define any “device” information that the claimed information is “in”.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: It is not clear in the final limitation what the relationship is between the phrases “a function that each home device” and “the Y home devices is configured to provide” in the phrase “a function that each home device the Y home devices is configured to provide”.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "the first function". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 19 states that “the X home devices in the first device group are classified by the device based on a spatial attribute of each home device of the X home devices and a function that each home device of the X home devices is configured to provide” so it allows for each home device to have its own unique function that is used in the classification process and therefore the applicant has not defined a single “first function”.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "the W home device". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The applicant does not define one particular “W” home device.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "the at least one home device" in each of the “comprises one or more of” alternatives. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim previously recites multiple home devices and groups of home devices so it is not clear which “home device” or “home devices” the applicant is trying to cover.
Claim 28 recites the limitation "the V home devices". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 28 recites the limitation "the W home devices". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: Both the sixth, seventh, and eighth user operations are all defined as at least the user touching the ninth control so it not clear how these operations are performed in “different manners” as claimed.
Claim 32 recites the limitation "the first function". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 19 states that “the X home devices in the first device group are classified by the device based on a spatial attribute of each home device of the X home devices and a function that each home device of the X home devices is configured to provide” so it allows for each home device to have its own unique function that is used in the classification process and therefore the applicant has not defined a single “first function”.
Claim 32 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: It is not clear what it means to “add a first home device as a fourth home device”. The claim does not establish any context for what a “fourth” home device means or how a first devices is added as a “fourth” device. There is no description of what the “second” and “third” devices might be.
Claim 33 recites the limitation "the first function". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 19 states that “the X home devices in the first device group are classified by the device based on a spatial attribute of each home device of the X home devices and a function that each home device of the X home devices is configured to provide” so it allows for each home device to have its own unique function that is used in the classification process and therefore the applicant has not defined a single “first function”.
Claim 33 recites the limitation "the home device" in the “based on a spatial attribute of the home device and a function that can be provided by the home device”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The applicant does not define one specific “home device”.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: It is not clear what the relationship is between the displayed “second control” and the phrases “wherein Y is a positive integer, wherein a second device group comprises the Y home devices, wherein the Y home devices are in a second space and are configured to provide a second function”. The language does not tie the “Y home devices” to the displayed “second control” in any manner.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: the first user operation “comprises at least a user touching the first control” and the second user operation “comprises at least the user touching one of the first control and the second control”. It is unclear how the “first user operation” and “second user operation” are different if they both can comprise only the user touching the first control.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: The claims covering “receiving, by the device, a second user operation to combine the first control and the second control into a third control” and then they covering displaying the “third control” but the claims do not actually recite any step of actually acting in response to the received second user operation to actually create the third control so that it can be displayed.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: The applicant omits the step of creating the “third control instruction” that is sent in response to the third user operation being performed on the third control. In the claim, the third control is dynamically created based on the reception of the “second user operation” so the “third control instruction” would have to be dynamically created dependent upon which home devices end up forming the “Z home devices” group and what their control properties are, as presumably, the X and Y home devices can have differing control instructions.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: the applicant recites “a third control instruction” which implies there is a “second control instruction” but fails to define any “second control instruction” in the claim.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: the applicant claims that the “fourth user operation” that is received by the device is “performed on the second control” but then the applicant defines “the fourth user operation comprises at least the user touching the fourth control”. It is unclear what the relationship is between the claimed “fourth user operation”, the “second control”, and the “fourth control”.
Claim 35 recites the limitation "the V home devices in the first space". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 35 recites the limitation "the at least one home device" in each of the “comprises one or more of” alternatives. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim previously recites multiple home devices and groups of home devices so it is not clear which “home device” or “home devices” the applicant is trying to cover.
Claim 35 recites the limitation "the V home devices" in the final wherein clause. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The applicant defines “V” as a positive integer but does not actually define the “V” home devices.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: It is not clear what the relationship is between the displayed “second control” and the phrases “wherein Y is a positive integer, wherein a second device group comprises the Y home devices, wherein the Y home devices are in a second space and are configured to provide a second function”. The language does not tie the “Y home devices” to the displayed “second control” in any manner.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: the first user operation “comprises at least a user touching the first control” and the second user operation “comprises at least the user touching one of the first control and the second control”. It is unclear how the “first user operation” and “second user operation” are different if they both can comprise only the user touching the first control.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: The claims covering “receiving, by the device, a second user operation to combine the first control and the second control into a third control” and then they covering displaying the “third control” but the claims do not actually recite any step of actually acting in response to the received second user operation to actually create the third control so that it can be displayed.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: The applicant omits the step of creating the “third control instruction” that is sent in response to the third user operation being performed on the third control. In the claim, the third control is dynamically created based on the reception of the “second user operation” so the “third control instruction” would have to be dynamically created dependent upon which home devices end up forming the “Z home devices” group and what their control properties are, as presumably, the X and Y home devices can have differing control instructions.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: the applicant recites “a third control instruction” which implies there is a “second control instruction” but fails to define any “second control instruction” in the claim.
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: the applicant claims that the “fourth user operation” that is received by the device is “performed on the second control” but then the applicant defines “the fourth user operation comprises at least the user touching the fourth control”. It is unclear what the relationship is between the claimed “fourth user operation”, the “second control”, and the “fourth control”.
Claim 37 recites the limitation "the V home devices in the first space". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 37 recites the limitation "the at least one home device" in each of the “comprises one or more of” alternatives. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim previously recites multiple home devices and groups of home devices so it is not clear which “home device” or “home devices” the applicant is trying to cover.
Claim 37 recites the limitation "the V home devices" in the final wherein clause. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The applicant defines “V” as a positive integer but does not actually define the “V” home devices.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 –
(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.
Claim(s) 19-21, 23, 30, and 32-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2020/0394014 by Coburn.
As to claim 19, Coburn teaches a device, comprising: a communication apparatus; at least one processor; and at least one non-transitory computer-readable memory connected to the at least one processor and including computer program code, wherein the at least one non-transitory computer-readable memory and the computer program code are configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the device to: display, by the device, a first control, wherein the first control is associated with a first device group (paragraph 55, playback command for zone group is displayed), wherein X is a positive integer, wherein a first device group comprises X home devices, wherein the X home devices are in a first space and are configured to provide a first function, and wherein the X home devices in the first device group are classified by the device based on a spatial attribute of each home device of the X home devices and a function that each home device of the X home devices is configured to provide, and wherein X is a positive integer (Figure 1, devices in zones are all capable of playing audio); receive, by the device, a first user operation performed on the first control, and send a first control instruction to the X home devices in the first device group, wherein the first user operation comprises at least a user touching the first control, wherein the first control instruction enables causes a first home device that receives the first control instruction to perform an operation indicated by the first control instruction (paragraph 55, control device can instruct devices in any zone group to play content after a user touches display); display, by the device, a second control (Figure 4, group command), wherein Y is a positive integer, wherein a second device group comprises the Y home devices, wherein the Y home devices are in a second space and are configured to provide a second function (Figure 1 allows for multiple zones): receive, by the device, a second user operation to combine the first control and the second control into a third control in response to the second user operation, wherein Z is a positive integer, wherein the second user operation comprises at least the user touching one of the first control or the second control, wherein the third device group comprises Z home devices, and wherein the Z home devices comprises the X home devices and the Y home devices (paragraph 57, any of the zones including their devices can be grouped together): display, by the device, the third control in response to the second user operation: receive, by the device, a third user operation performed on the third control, wherein the third user operation comprises at least the user touching the third control; and send a third control instruction to the Z home devices in the third device group in response to the third user operation (paragraphs 49, 55 and 58, a user can control play of audio in the new “dinner party” zone in including the groups of devices in the dining room and the kitchen groups).
As to claims 34 and 36, they are rejected according to the same reasoning as claim 19.
As to claims 20, 21, 35, and 37, any number of groups can be combined in the manner shown in the mapping of claim 19, the playback commands are considered the “fifth control”, and the playback status can be considered a “working status”.
As to claim 23, see paragraphs 45-49, the zones are based on what devices with playback functionality are in different physical spaces.
As to claims 32 and 33, paragraph 53 suggests adding and removing devices from zones.
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.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2020/0394014 by Coburn in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2017/0208116 by Shillit et al.
As to claim 22, Coburn teaches the subject matter of claim 19 however Coburn does not explicitly teach obtaining monitoring data in the manner claimed.
Shillit teaches a device is caused to: obtain, by the device, data monitored by a second home device managed by the device (paragraph 44); determine, by the device based on a function that the second home device is configured to provide, a category of the data monitored by the second home device, wherein the category of the data monitored by the second home device comprises one or more of: environment monitoring data or security protection data (paragraph 43); and display, by the device, a third user interface, wherein the third user interface comprises at least one component, and a component of the at least one component displays a category of data monitored by the second home device (Figure 7, thermostat information is displayed and door locking recommendations can be displayed in paragraph 83).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the device management art at the time of the filing to combine the teachings of Coburn regarding providing an interface for controlling device functions with the teachings of Schillit regarding obtaining and displaying monitored data from home devices because information from devices in the home, such as the information described by Schillit, may be of use the user of the Coburn system.
Claim(s) 26-31 and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2020/0394014 by Coburn in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2020/0112454 by Brown et al.
As to claim 26, Coburn teaches the subject matter of claim 20, however Coburn does not explicitly teach the use of cards in the manner claimed by the applicant.
Brown teaches displaying multiple controls on a card including wherein a first control and the “fourth” control are displayed on a first card (Figure 5, controls are displayed on “Home” card), and wherein the device is further caused to: display, by the device, a second card, wherein a “sixth” control and a “seventh” control are displayed on the second card (Figure 5 different controls are displayed on “Attic” card); wherein M is a positive integer, wherein a fourth device group comprises M home devices that are in a third space and that are configured to provide the first function, wherein the sixth control is used to trigger the device to send a fourth control instruction to the M home devices in the fourth device group, and the fourth control instruction enables causes a third home device that receives the fourth control instruction to perform an operation indicated by the fourth control instruction (attic lights can turn on); and wherein the seventh control is used to trigger the device to display a second user interface (paragraph 77, after 526 is selected an interface is presented), wherein W is an integer greater than or equal to M, and wherein the W home device comprise the M home devices, wherein the second user interface comprises information of W home devices in the third space, and wherein information of at least one home device in the information of the W home devices comprises one or more of: an “eighth” control used to control the at least one home device (paragraph 30, volume for the attic speaker could be controlled).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the device management art at the time of the filing to combine the teachings of Coburn regarding providing an interface for controlling device functions with the teachings of Brown regarding managing cards for accesses devices based on different characteristics of the devices because such interfaces would enhance the room control functionality already described in Coburn.
As to claim 27, Brown teaches receiving an operation to combine cards into a third card (paragraph 101); displaying a third card with a control on the third card (Figure 13); and receiving a user operation on the control on the third card to perform a instruction on X home devices in a first group (living room) and M home devices in a fourth group (dining room); Brown teaches the operation to combine as spoken but both Brown on Coburn show that touch interfaces are well known means for interacting with the device (paragraph 55 of Coburn and paragraph 72 of Brown shows that touch can be an alternative to a verbal command).
As to claim 28, Brown teaches a single control on a card can control different devices in different spaces, as shown in the rejection of claim 27.
As to claim 29, each light interacted with in response to the command performed in Figure 13 of Brown performs an operation on each light in a different manner, as the lights are different. There is no attempt to define “different manner” in the claim.
As to claim 30, see paragraph 57 of Coburn.
As to claim 31, the user in Brown could navigate from Figure 13 back to the individual interfaces depicted in Figure 8.
As to claim 38, Coburn teaches the subject matter of claim 19; however Coburn does not explicitly teach that a function that each home device of the X home devices is configured to provide is obtained by the device from a server based on a binding relationship between the device and each home device of the X home devices.
Brown teaches a system where a function that each home device of the X home devices is configured to provide is obtained by the device from a server based on a binding relationship between the device and each home device of the X home devices (paragraph 61 and 64).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the device management art at the time of the filing to combine the teachings of Coburn regarding providing an interface for controlling device functions with the teachings of Brown regarding providing functions based on a binding relationship between a device and each home device because such measures would allow for protection of the home devices in Coburn (see paragraph 61 of Brown which pertains to the same type and context of device management as Coburn).
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 DOUGLAS B BLAIR whose telephone number is (571)272-3893. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Glenton Burgess can be reached at 571-272-3949. 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.
/DOUGLAS B BLAIR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454
