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 Amendment
Applicant's submission filed on 5/5/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending. Newly amended features, where relevant, necessitate new ground(s) of rejection(s).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 11 and 20 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 § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9, 10-15, 17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bryan et al. (US 2022/0394046 hereinafter Bryan) in view of Johnson et al. (US 2025/0267030 hereinafter Johnson).
Regarding claim 1, Bryan discloses a method comprising:
receiving, from a user device via first communication protocol, a request for data associated with and a [[ambient wireless]] second device (FIG. 1-7 & 23, ¶ [0088], [0364]-[0378]; i.e. receiving from remote devices via communication network such as cellular network, internet, etc. request for data associated with home security and self-monitoring devices);
determining, based on the request, a capability of a first device to access the data from the [[ambient wireless]] second device via a second communication protocol (FIG. 1-7 & 23, ¶ [0155]-[0157], [0364]-[0378], [0400]; i.e. determining the presence or capability of a server relay or gateway relay to access the data of the home security and self-monitoring devices via the private network, WAN, LAN, etc.);
sending, by one or more processors to the first device via the first communication protocol, a message to cause the first device to access the data from the [[ambient wireless]] second device using the second communication protocol and send the data to the one or more processors using the first communication protocol (FIG. 1-7 & 23, ¶ [0155]-[0157], [0364]-[0378]; i.e. sending instructions to the sever relay or gateway relay to obtain or streaming the data from the home security and self-monitoring devices via the private network, WAN, LAN, etc.); and
granting or denying the user device with access to the data (FIG. 1-7, ¶ [0103], [0364]-[0378], [0395]-[0396]; i.e. users can only access the networks or obtain data to which they have been granted permission).
Bryan does not explicitly disclose ambient wireless device.
However, Johnson discloses ambient wireless device (FIG. 1-5, ¶ [0006]-[0007]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Bryan and Johnson in order to provide an efficient way for a property manager to use a smart hub and server to manage and control smart devices (Johnson, ¶ [0002]-[0005], [0040]).
Regarding claim 2, Bryan in view of Johnson discloses the method of claim 1, wherein granting or denying the user device with the access to the data further comprises: determining whether the user device has permission to access the data associated with the ambient wireless device, and either: sending the data to the user device responsive to determining that the user device has the permission to access the data, or sending an error message to the user device responsive to determining that the user device does not have the permission to access the data, wherein the error message indicates that the user device does not have the permission to access the data (Bryan, ¶ [0395]-[0396]; Johnson, ¶ [0043]).
Regarding claim 3, Bryan in view of Johnson discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: generating mapping data comprising a first group of identifiers to devices of a first type and a second group of identifiers to devices of a second type, wherein the devices of the second group of identifiers are incapable of communicating using the first communication protocol (Bryan, FIG. 20, ¶ [0347]-[0350]); and storing the mapping data in a data store (Bryan, FIG. 20, ¶ [0347]-[0350]).
Regarding claim 4, Bryan in view of Johnson discloses the method of claim 3, wherein determining, based on the request, the capability of the first device to access the ambient wireless device comprises: identifying the first device based on the mapping data (Bryan, FIG. 20, ¶ [0109]-[0112], [0347]-[0350]).
Regarding claim 5, Bryan in view of Johnson discloses the method of claim 3, wherein determining, based on the request, the capability of the first device to access the ambient wireless device comprises at least one of: determining, based on the mapping data, an existence of a prior connection between the first device and the ambient wireless device, wherein the prior connection was of the second communication protocol, or determining, based on the mapping data, that a physical location of the first device relative to a physical location of the ambient wireless device is within a maximum range to communicate via the second communication protocol (Bryan, ¶ [0148]-[0156]).
Regarding claim 7, Bryan in view of Johnson discloses the method of claim 5, wherein the first device initiated the prior connection with the ambient wireless device (Bryan, ¶ [0148]-[0157]).
Regarding claim 9, Bryan in view of Johnson discloses the method of claim 5, wherein the prior connection was established via a mutual authentication procedure performed by the first device and the ambient wireless device (Bryan, ¶ [0148]-[0156]).
Regarding claim 10, Bryan in view of Johnson discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first communication protocol is Wi-Fi and the second communication protocol is near field communication (NFC) (Johnson, FIG. 14, ¶ [0050]-[0051],[0071]).
Regarding claim 11, Bryan discloses an ambient device management (ADM) system, comprising:
a first device (FIG. 1-7 & 23, ¶ [0088], [0364]-[0378]; i.e. server relay or gateway relay);
one or more processors communicatively coupled to the first device via a first communication protocol (FIG. 1-7 & 23, ¶ [0088], [0364]-[0378]), the one or more processors configured to:
receive, from a user device via the first communication protocol, a request for data associated with a [[ambient wireless]] second device (FIG. 1-7 & 23, ¶ [0088], [0364]-[0378]; i.e. receiving from remote devices via communication network such as cellular network, internet, etc. request for data associated with home security and self-monitoring devices);
determine, based on the request, a capability of the first device to access the data from the [[ambient wireless]] second device (FIG. 1-7 & 23, ¶ [0155]-[0157], [0364]-[0378], [0400]; i.e. determining the presence or capability of a server relay or gateway relay to access the data of the home security and self-monitoring devices via the private network, WAN, LAN, etc.);
send, to the first device via the first communication protocol, a message to cause the first device to access the data from the [[ambient wireless]] second device using a second communication protocol and send the data to the one or more processors using the first communication protocol (FIG. 1-7 & 23, ¶ [0155]-[0157], [0364]-[0378]; i.e. sending instructions to the sever relay or gateway relay to obtain or streaming the data from the home security and self-monitoring devices via the private network, WAN, LAN, etc.); and
grant or deny the user device with access to the data (FIG. 1-7, ¶ [0103], [0364]-[0378], [0395]-[0396]; i.e. users can only access the networks or obtain data to which they have been granted permission).
Bryan does not explicitly disclose ambient wireless device.
However, Johnson discloses ambient wireless device (FIG. 1-5, ¶ [0006]-[0007]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Bryan and Johnson in order to provide an efficient way for a property manager to use a smart hub and server to manage and control smart devices (Johnson, ¶ [0002]-[0005], [0040]).
Regarding claim 12, see claim 2 above for the same reasons of rejections.
Regarding claim 13, see claim 3 above for the same reasons of rejections.
Regarding claim 14, see claim 4 above for the same reasons of rejections.
Regarding claim 15, see claim 5 above for the same reasons of rejections.
Regarding claim 17, see claim 7 above for the same reasons of rejections.
Regarding claim 19, Bryan in view of Johnson discloses the ADM system of claim 15, wherein at least one of: the prior connection was established via a mutual authentication procedure performed by the first device and the ambient wireless device, or the first communication protocol is Wi-Fi and the second communication protocol is near field communication (NFC) (Bryan, ¶ [0148]-[0156]).
Regarding claim 20, Bryan discloses a method comprising:
monitoring, via a first communication protocol, a plurality of devices of a first type to determine a plurality of connection states between the plurality of devices of the first type and a plurality of [[ambient]] devices of a second type, the connection states indicative of connections of a second communication protocol (FIG. 1-7, 20 & 23, ¶ [0105]-[0115], [0347]-[0350], [0400]; i.e. managing and/or monitoring the communications of all the devices including servers, gateway, user devices, home security and self-monitoring devices, etc.);
selecting, by one or more processors and based on the plurality of connection states, a first device of the plurality of devices of the first type and a [[ambient wireless]] second device of the plurality of [[ambient]] devices of the second type (FIG. 1-7, 20 & 23, ¶ [0112], [0155]-[0157], [0364]-[0378], [0400]; i.e. selecting servers, gateway, home security and self-monitoring devices based on the states and/or capability); and
accessing data of the [[ambient wireless]] second device via the first device (FIG. 1-7, 20 & 23, ¶ [0112], [0155]-[0157], [0364]-[0378], [0400]; i.e. accessing or streaming data from the home security and self-monitoring devices via the servers and/or gateway).
Bryan does not explicitly disclose ambient wireless device.
However, Johnson discloses ambient wireless device (FIG. 1-5, ¶ [0006]-[0007]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Bryan and Johnson in order to provide an efficient way for a property manager to use a smart hub and server to manage and control smart devices (Johnson, ¶ [0002]-[0005], [0040]).
Claims 6, 8, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bryan et al. (US 2022/0394046 hereinafter Bryan) in view of Johnson et al. (US 2025/0267030 hereinafter Johnson) and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2023/0300197 hereinafter Kim).
Regarding claim 6, Bryan in view of Johnson discloses the method of claim 5.
Bryan in view of Johnson does not explicitly disclose wherein the ambient wireless device initiated the prior connection with the first device.
However, Kim discloses wherein the ambient wireless device initiated the prior connection with the first device (FIG. 12-13, ¶ [0194]-[0195]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Bryan, Johnson and Kim in order to provide and process rules in an automation technology of an IoT environment to achieve efficient, secured and low cost performance (Kim, ¶ [0003]-[0007]).
Regarding claim 8, Bryan in view of Johnson discloses the method of claim 5.
Bryan in view of Johnson does not explicitly disclose further comprising: determining that the prior connection between the first device and the ambient wireless device no longer exists; and updating the mapping data to indicate that the prior connection between the first device and the ambient wireless device no longer exists.
However, Kim discloses determining that the prior connection between the first device and the second device no longer exists; and updating the mapping data to indicate that the prior connection between the first device and the second device no longer exists (¶ [0051]-[0052]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Bryan, Johnson and Kim in order to provide and process rules in an automation technology of an IoT environment to achieve efficient, secured and low cost performance (Kim, ¶ [0003]-[0007]).
Regarding claim 16, see claim 6 above for the same reasons of rejections.
Regarding claim 18, see claim 8 above for the same reasons of rejections.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHI D NGUY whose telephone number is (571)270-7311. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5 ET.
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, Amir Mehrmanesh can be reached at (571)270-3351. 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.
/C.D.N/Examiner, Art Unit 2435
/AMIR MEHRMANESH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2435
Prosecution Insights