DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is a response to an RCE filed on 4/28/2026 with amendment/arguments filed on 4/1/2026 which was in response to the office action mailed on 1/28/2026 (hereinafter the prior office action).
Claim(s) 21-40 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 21-22, 28-29 and 35-36 is/are amended.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are cancelled.
Claim(s) 21, 28 and 35 is/are independent.
Applicant’s amendments have overcome prior rejection(s) based on Double Patenting.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/28/2026 with amendment/arguments filed on 4/1/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 4/1/2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states in Pg. 9 in “Remarks” regarding claim 21 that Kloos does not teach Applicant’s newly amended limitation of determining by an actuating function that an action is supported by the actuating function and responding to that determination, and instead that Kloos discloses determining that equipment supports signal transmission and instructing the equipment to transmitting the signal. Applicant further states in Pg. 10 that Wengrovitz does not cure Kloos’ deficiencies.
Examiner respectfully disagrees because Kloos discloses in Para. 46 that communication system 200 can determine not to send instruction to equipment under certain conditions, for e.g. when user equipment is of a sufficiently great distance from the radio access network, RAN, being serviced by communication system 200, i.e. determination is made whether action, i.e. sending instructions, is supported by actuating function, i.e. instructing function of communication system 200; thus, communication system 200 can respond to a determination of user equipment being too far away and not instruct, or conversely, within range of radio access network RAN and instruct equipment.
Applicant further states in Pg. 10 in “Remarks” that the other independent claims 28 and 35 are patentable for similar reasons as above with respect to claim 21.
Examiner respectfully disagrees because of the response above to Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 21.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wengrovitz et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0084692) (hereinafter “Wengrovitz”) in view of Kloos et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0225879) (hereinafter “Kloos”).
Regarding claim 21, Wengrovitz teaches a system, comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memories, wherein the one or more memories have stored thereon instructions, which when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors (Fig. 2 - - processor executes instructions stored on memory)
to implement an IoT service, wherein the IoT service is configured (Para. 26 - - IoT service is implemented for multiple clients)
to: generate a sensing function, wherein the sensing function is configured to: obtain data from equipment at a remote network of a client; (Para. 29 - - sensor equipment associated with client is used)
determine, based on the data, whether a condition has been met; (Para. 29 - - state/event/condition are sensed, where the sensed condition is analyzed to determine when an action should be taken, i.e. to determine if a condition has met)
and in response to a determination that the condition has been met, provide, to an actuating function, an indication of an action; (Para. 29 - - state/event/condition are sensed, and based on the sensed condition, actions are performed)
generate the actuating function, wherein the actuating function is configured to: receive the indication of the action; (Para. 72 - system transmits the message that triggers the appropriate response, i.e. actuation, in response to transmitted messages)
subsequent to reception, by the actuating function, of the indication of the action, determine, by the actuating function, whether the action is supported (Para. 72 - - equipment carries out the actuating function that is supported by the equipment)
…send a command to the equipment to cause the equipment to perform the action; (Para. 72 - - equipment carries out the actuating function)
and deploy the sensing function and the actuating function to the remote network of the client. (Para. 29 - - state/event/condition are sensed, and based on the sensed condition, actions are performed)
But Wengrovitz does not explicitly teach determine, by the actuating function, whether the action is supported by the actuating function;
and in response to a determination, by the actuating function, that the action is supported by the actuating function,
However, Kloos teaches determine, by the actuating function, whether the action is supported by the actuating function; (Para. 46 - - communication system 200 can determine not to send instruction to equipment under certain conditions, for e.g. when user equipment is of a sufficiently great distance from the radio access network, RAN, being serviced by communication system 200, i.e. determination is made whether action, i.e. sending instructions, is supported by actuating function, i.e. instructing function of communication system 200)
in response to a determination by the actuating function, that the action is supported by the actuating function, (Para. 46 - - communication system 200 can respond to a determination of user equipment being too far away, or conversely, within range of radio access network RAN)
Wengrovitz and Kloos are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and/or functional similarities. They both contain communication systems used to control equipment.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above limitation(s) as taught by Wengrovitz, by incorporating the above limitation(s) as taught by Kloos.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide improved quality of communication, as suggested by Kloos (Para. 9).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Wengrovitz and Kloos teaches all the limitations of the base claim(s).
Wengrovitz further teaches wherein the actuating function is further configured to: receive an indication of another action; (Fig. 1, Para. 35 - - messages, i.e. indications of action, are received)
determine whether the other action is supported by the actuating function; (Fig. 1, Para. 35 - - messages are determined to be authorized or not because the client is not a member of an incident, i.e. the received indication of an action is determined to be not supported by the equipment)
and in response to a determination that the other action is not supported by the actuating function, perform one or more of: ignore the indication of the other action, or provide, to a destination, an indication that the other action is not a supported action for the equipment. (Fig. 1, Para. 35 - - messages are not accepted, i.e. ignored, when they are not authorized because the client is not a member of an incident, i.e. the received indication of an action is determined to be not supported by the equipment, and in response, the indication/message is ignored)
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Wengrovitz and Kloos teaches all the limitations of the base claim(s).
Wengrovitz further teaches wherein to generate the sensing function, the IoT service is configured to assign, to the sensing function, read only access to the equipment according to a communication protocol of the equipment. (Para. 30 - - IoT broker/service policies for giving permission to publish; Para. 69 - - some devices can only-publish; Para. 72 - - publishing can be reading equipment data, such as read only access to a sensor)
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Wengrovitz and Kloos teaches all the limitations of the base claim(s).
Wengrovitz further teaches wherein to generate the actuating function, the IoT service is configured to assign, to the actuating function, write only access to the equipment according to a communication protocol of the equipment. (Para. 30 - - IoT broker/service policies for giving permission to publish; Para. 69 - - some devices can only-subscribe; Para. 74 - - subscribing can be taking control of an equipment, i.e. writing data)
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Wengrovitz and Kloos teaches all the limitations of the base claim(s).
Wengrovitz further teaches wherein the IoT service is further configured to: deploy an update for the actuating function to the remote network of the client, wherein the update indicates one or more additional actions for the equipment. (Para. 74-75 - - multiple, i.e. additional, actions of an equipment can be performed by controlling client; Para. 30 - - system can dynamically change, i.e. update, policies related to clients)
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Wengrovitz and Kloos teaches all the limitations of the base claim(s).
Wengrovitz further teaches wherein the condition comprises one or more values of the data exceeding a predetermined threshold value, and wherein to determine that the condition has been met, the sensing function is configured to: determine that the one more values of the data exceed the predetermined threshold value. (Para. 42, 44 - - sensor can detect smoke, and based on the detection and/or temperature reading cause a fire alarm, i.e. sensor determines a predetermined threshold value of smoke/temperature that causes the condition of a fire alarm to be met)
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Wengrovitz and Kloos teaches all the limitations of the base claim(s).
Wengrovitz further teaches wherein the IoT service is further configured to: deploy an update for the sensing function to the remote network of the client, wherein the update indicates a different value for the predetermined threshold value. (Para. 30 - - system can dynamically change, i.e. update, policies related to clients; Para. 29 - - clients can include various equipment with their respective action)
Regarding claim 28, Wengrovitz teaches a method, comprising: performing, by one or more computing devices: (Fig. 2 - - processor executes instructions stored on memory)
generating a sensing function, wherein the sensing function is configured to: obtain data from equipment at a remote network of a client; (Para. 29 - - sensor equipment associated with client is used)
determine, based on the data, whether a condition has been met; (Para. 29 - - state/event/condition are sensed)
and in response to a determination that the condition has been met, provide, to an actuating function, an indication of an action; (Para. 29 - - based on the sensed condition, actions are performed, where the sensed condition is analyzed to determine when an action should be taken, i.e. to determine if a condition has met)
generating the actuating function, wherein the actuating function is configured to: receive the indication of the action; (Para. 72 - system transmits the message that triggers the appropriate response, i.e. actuation, in response to transmitted messages)
subsequent to reception, by the actuating function, of the indication of the action, determine, by the actuating function, whether the action is supported (Para. 72 - - equipment carries out the actuating function that is supported by the equipment)
…send a command to the equipment to cause the equipment to perform the action; (Para. 72 - - equipment carries out the actuating function)
and deploying the sensing function and the actuating function to the remote network of the client. (Para. 29 - - state/event/condition are sensed, and based on the sensed condition, actions are performed)
But Wengrovitz does not explicitly teach determine, by the actuating function, whether the action is supported by the actuating function;
and in response to a determination, by the actuating function, that the indicated action is supported by the actuating function,
However, Kloos teaches in response to a determination, by the actuating function, that the indicated action is supported by the actuating function, (Para. 39, Claim 6, 11 - - instruction is given in response to a determination that an action is supported by the equipment, where the action is an actuating function such as transmitting signals)
Wengrovitz and Kloos are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and/or functional similarities. They both contain communication systems used to control equipment.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above limitation(s) as taught by Wengrovitz, by incorporating the above limitation(s) as taught by Kloos.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide improved quality of communication, as suggested by Kloos (Para. 9).
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Wengrovitz and Kloos teaches all the limitations of the base claim(s).
Wengrovitz further teaches wherein the actuating function is further configured to: receive an indication of another action; (Fig. 1, Para. 35 - - messages, i.e. indications of action, are received)
determine whether the other action is supported by the actuating function; (Fig. 1, Para. 35 - - messages are determined to be authorized or not because the client is not a member of an incident, i.e. the received indication of an action is determined to be not supported by the equipment)
and in response to a determination that the other action is not supported by the actuating function, perform one or more of: ignore the indication of the other action, or provide, to a destination, an indication that the other action is not a supported action for the equipment. (Fig. 1, Para. 35 - - messages are not accepted, i.e. ignored, when they are not authorized because the client is not a member of an incident, i.e. the received indication of an action is determined to be not supported by the equipment, and in response, the indication/message is ignored)
Regarding claim 30, the combination of Wengrovitz and Kloos teaches all the limitations of the base claim(s).
Wengrovitz further teaches wherein generating the sensing function comprises assigning, to the sensing function, read only access to the equipment according to a communication protocol of the equipment. (Para. 30 - - IoT broker/service policies for giving permission to publish; Para. 69 - - some devices can only-publish; Para. 72 - - publishing can be reading equipment data, such as read only access to a sensor)
Regarding claim 31, the combination of Wengrovitz and Kloos teaches all the limitations of the base claim(s).
Wengrovitz further teaches wherein generating the actuating function comprises assigning, to the actuating function, write only access to the equipment according to a communication protocol of the equipment. (Para. 30 - - IoT broker/service policies for giving permission to publish; Para. 69 - - some devices can only-subscribe; Para. 74 - - subscribing can be taking control of an equipment, i.e. writing data)
Regarding claim 32, the combination of Wengrovitz and Kloos teaches all the limitations of the base claim(s).
Wengrovitz further teaches deploying an update for the actuating function to the remote network of the client, wherein the update indicates one or more additional actions for the equipment. (Para. 74-75 - - multiple, i.e. additional, actions of an equipment can be performed by controlling client; Para. 30 - - system can dynamically change, i.e. update, policies related to clients)
Regarding claim 33, the combination of Wengrovitz and Kloos teaches all the limitations of the base claim(s).
Wengrovitz further teaches wherein the condition comprises one or more values of the data exceeding a predetermined threshold value, (Para. 42, 44 - - sensor can detect smoke, i.e. sensor determines a predetermined threshold value of smoke/temperature that causes the condition of a fire alarm to be met)
and wherein to determine that the condition has been met, the sensing function is configured to: determine that the one more values of the data exceed the predetermined threshold value. (Para. 42, 44 - - based on the detection and/or temperature reading, sensor causes a fire alarm, i.e. sensor determines a predetermined threshold value of smoke/temperature that causes the condition of a fire alarm to be met)
Regarding claim 34, the combination of Wengrovitz and Kloos teaches all the limitations of the base claim(s).
Wengrovitz further teaches deploying an update for the sensing function to the remote network of the client, wherein the update indicates a different value for the predetermined threshold value. (Para. 30 - - system can dynamically change, i.e. update, policies related to clients; Para. 29 - - clients can include various equipment with their respective action)
Regarding claim 35, Wengrovitz teaches one or more non-transitory computer-accessible storage media storing program instructions that when executed on or across one or more processors cause the one or more processors (Fig. 2 - - processor executes instructions stored on memory)
to: generate a sensing function, wherein the sensing function is configured to: obtain data from equipment at a remote network of a client; (Para. 29 - - sensor equipment associated with client is used, and communication is performed via network)
determine, based on the data, whether a condition has been met; (Para. 29 - - state/event/condition are sensed, where the sensed condition is analyzed to determine when an action should be taken, i.e. to determine if a condition has met)
and in response to a determination that the condition has been met, provide, to an actuating function, an indication of an action; (Para. 29 - - state/event/condition are sensed, and based on the sensed condition, actions are performed; Para. 31 - - system can listen to a multicast channel to detect an incident, i.e. event listener; Para. 30 - - incident is related to a topic)
generate the actuating function, wherein the actuating function is configured to: receive the indication of the action; (Para. 72 - - equipment carries out the action in response to transmitted messages, i.e. the system transmits the message that triggers the appropriate response)
subsequent to reception, by the actuating function, of the indication of the action, determine, by the actuating function, whether the action is supported (Para. 72 - - equipment carries out the actuating function that is supported by the equipment)
…send a command to the equipment to cause the equipment to perform the action; (Para. 72 - - equipment carries out the actuating function)
and deploy the sensing function and the actuating function to the remote network of the client. (Para. 29 - - state/event/condition are sensed, and based on the sensed condition, actions are performed)
But Wengrovitz does not explicitly teach determine, by the actuating function, whether the action is supported by the actuating function;
and in response to a determination that the indicated action is supported by the actuating function,
However, Kloos teaches in response to a determination that the indicated action is supported by the actuating function, (Para. 39, Claim 6, 11 - - instruction is given in response to a determination that an action is supported by the equipment, where the action is an actuating function such as transmitting signals)
Wengrovitz and Kloos are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and/or functional similarities. They both contain communication systems used to control equipment.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above limitation(s) as taught by Wengrovitz, by incorporating the above limitation(s) as taught by Kloos.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide improved quality of communication, as suggested by Kloos (Para. 9).
Regarding claim 36, the combination of Wengrovitz and Kloos teaches all the limitations of the base claim(s).
Wengrovitz further teaches wherein the actuating function is further configured to: receive an indication of another action; (Fig. 1, Para. 35 - - messages, i.e. indications of action, are received)
determine whether the other action is supported for the equipment; (Fig. 1, Para. 35 - - messages are determined to be authorized or not because the client is not a member of an incident, i.e. the received indication of an action is determined to be not supported by the equipment)
and in response to a determination that the other action is not supported for the equipment, perform one or more of: ignore the indication of the other action, or provide, to a destination, an indication that the other action is not a supported action for the equipment. (Fig. 1, Para. 35 - - messages are not accepted, i.e. ignored, when they are not authorized because the client is not a member of an incident, i.e. the received indication of an action is determined to be not supported by the equipment, and in response, the indication/message is ignored)
Regarding claim 37, the combination of Wengrovitz and Kloos teaches all the limitations of the base claim(s).
Wengrovitz further teaches wherein to generate the sensing function, the program instructions when executed on or across the one or more processors further cause the one or more processors to: assign, to the sensing function, read only access to the equipment according to a communication protocol of the equipment. (Para. 30 - - IoT broker/service policies for giving permission to publish; Para. 69 - - some devices can only-publish; Para. 72 - - publishing can be reading equipment data, such as read only access to a sensor)
Regarding claim 38, the combination of Wengrovitz and Kloos teaches all the limitations of the base claim(s).
Wengrovitz further teaches wherein to generate the actuating function, the program instructions when executed on or across the one or more processors further cause the one or more processors to: assign, to the actuating function, write only access to the equipment according to a communication protocol of the equipment. (Para. 30 - - IoT broker/service policies for giving permission to publish; Para. 69 - - some devices can only-subscribe; Para. 74 - - subscribing can be taking control of an equipment, i.e. writing data)
Regarding claim 39, the combination of Wengrovitz and Kloos teaches all the limitations of the base claim(s).
Wengrovitz further teaches wherein the program instructions when executed on or across the one or more processors further cause the one or more processors to: deploy an update for the actuating function to the remote network of the client, wherein the update indicates one or more additional actions for the equipment. (Para. 74-75 - - multiple, i.e. additional, actions of an equipment can be performed by controlling client; Para. 30 - - system can dynamically change, i.e. update, policies related to clients)
Regarding claim 40, the combination of Wengrovitz and Kloos teaches all the limitations of the base claim(s).
Wengrovitz further teaches wherein the condition comprises one or more values of the data exceeding a predetermined threshold value, (Para. 42, 44 - - sensor can detect smoke, i.e. sensor determines a predetermined threshold value of smoke/temperature that causes the condition of a fire alarm to be met)
and wherein to determine that the condition has been met, the sensing function is configured to: determine that the one more values of the data exceed the predetermined threshold value. (Para. 42, 44 - - based on the detection and/or temperature reading, sensor causes a fire alarm, i.e. sensor determines a predetermined threshold value of smoke/temperature that causes the condition of a fire alarm to be met)
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Pat. No. 8,843,241 by Saberi et al., which discloses remote monitoring and control of equipment (Title/Abstract).
U.S. Pat. No. 6,968,905 by Adnan et al., which discloses distributed control system including real-time and non-real-time networks and multiple control units controlling various equipment (Title/Abstract).
U.S. Pat. No. 9,779,571 by Chong, which discloses internet-of-things remote controls including enabling and extending traditional technology products in seamless and cost-effective ways (Title/Abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Saad M. Kabir whose telephone number is 571-270-0608 (direct fax number is 571-270-9933). The examiner can normally be reached on Mondays to Fridays 9am to 5pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mohammad Ali can be reached on 571-272-4105. 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.
/SAAD M KABIR/
Examiner, Art Unit 2119
/ZIAUL KARIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights