DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Action is in response to Preliminary Amendment filed on 09/13/2024.
Claims 4, 6-8, 11 have been amended. Claims 12-13 are cancelled and 14-22 are new.
Claims 1-11 and 14-22 remain pending. Claims are subject to restriction requirement.
Claims 1, 8, 14 and 22 are independent claims.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 09/13/2024 and on 02/05/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDSs are being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-7 and 14-21, drawn to method and an electronic device (a hub) for sharing intelligence-derived information in a home network, classified at least in H04L67/54 - H04L67/56, H04L12/2827 and H04L12/54.
II. Claims 8-11 and 22, drawn to a method and an electronic device (a hub) for sharing intelligence-derived information in a home network, classified at least in H04L 67/51, G06F 9/542 and H04L 51/224.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as subcombinations disclosed as usable together in a single combination. The subcombinations are distinct if they do not overlap in scope and are not obvious variants, and if it is shown that at least one subcombination is separately usable. In the instant case, subcombination II has separate utility such as receiving, from a partner device, an advertisement of a custom cluster installed at the partner device; filtering the received state information to determine that the partner device can receive the state information; and based on the filtering of the received state information, sending a command to the custom cluster at the partner device, the command being indicative of the received state information. See MPEP § 806.05(d).
The examiner has required restriction between subcombinations usable together. Where applicant elects a subcombination and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply: the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
During a telephone conversation with Attorney ERIN KASHIWADA (Reg. #76045) on 07/08/2026 and 07/10/2026, a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-7 and 14-21. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. As such, claims 8-11 and 22 (Group II) are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Claims 1-7 and 14-21 are presented for examination.
Domestic Benefit/ National Stage Information
This application is a 371 of international application (# PCT/US2023/066692) filed on 05/05/2023, which claims benefit of provisional application. Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for benefit of provisional application 63/364,458 filed on 05/10/2022.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
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) 1-2, 7, 14-15 and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OCK et al. (hereinafter, OCK, EP 3355521 A1) in view of Kozura et al. (hereinafter, Kozura, US 20190028338 A1).
Regarding claim 1, OCK discloses a method of sharing intelligence-derived information by a hub in a home network (see “smart home server” in [0012]; also see [0059]-[0061] in view of Fig.1A:100 and 1B:100; the plurality of devices (D) may be connected to the device server (SD); the smart home service server 100 may be connected to both of the device server (SD) to which the device (D) is connected, and the partner server (SU) to which the user terminal (U) is connected), the method comprising the hub:
exposing a virtual device on the home network, the virtual device including one or more clusters (see [0119]; the event transmitter 180 may transmit the controllable device (D) list to the partner server (SP); also see [0161] in view of Fig.11 and 18; In response to the "Get devices" call command, the smart home service server 100 may provide the controllable device (D) list stored in the storage 170, to the partner server);
receiving, from a partner device, a request to subscribe to a cluster of the one or more clusters (see [0128]; a call command calling the device (D) state information subscription request command is input via the partner server (SP); also see [0163] in view of Fig.18: step 4; In ④ subscription, the authenticated user terminal (U) of the partner server (SP) may transmit the call command calling the subscription request command of the device (D) state information);
receiving state information from an intelligence service, the state information associated with the cluster (see [0012]; the smart home service server may further include… an event receiver configured to receive state information of the connected at least one device via the device interlock interface; also see [0134]; the event receiver 150 may receive an event, e.g., a case in which the state information of at least one device (D) connected to the device interlock interface 140 is changed, (700); also see [0164] in view of Fig.18: step 5; when the event of the state information change occurs, the subscribed device (D) may transmit the occurrence to the smart home service server 100);
storing the received state information as an attribute of the cluster (see [0012]; the smart home service server may further include… a storage configured to store the processed state information; also see [0103]; the storage 170 may store the device (D) information… Further, the storage 170 may store the state information (S); also see [0164]; The smart home service server 100 may update the state information of the corresponding device (D) stored in the storage 170; also see Fig.8 that shows device state information stored in the storage with attribute “state”; also see Fig.18); and
notifying the attribute of the cluster to the partner device (see [0137]; At last, the event transmitter 180 may transmit the state information of the subscribed device (D) to the user terminal (U) via the partner server (SP) (730); also see [0164]; the smart home service server 100 may notify that the state information is updated, to the user terminal (U) subscribing to the device (D). The user terminal (U) may transmit that the notification is received, to the smart home service server 100 via the partner server (SP), the notifying being effective to direct the partner device to determine whether to perform a local action based on the attribute (see [0165] in view of Fig.18 step 6; In ⑥ control, the authenticated user terminal (U) of the partner server (SP) may transmit the call command calling the control command controlling the operation of device (D)).
Although, and as set forth above, OCK discloses notifying the attribute of the cluster to the partner device (see [0137]; also see [0164]-[0165]), OCK does not explicitly discloses publishing the attribute of the cluster to the partner device.
However, in an analogous art, Kozura discloses publishing the attribute of the cluster to the partner device (see [0421]; PubNub is a third-party service that provides fast efficient messaging using publish/subscribe based channels; also see [0423]; Channels are PubNub's message pipelines, which can be independently published and subscribed to by multiple clients).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Kozura with OCK to publish the attribute of the cluster to the partner device.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to enhance or optimize the actual operation of the devices themselves with respect to their immediate functions, and/or to “repurpose” that data in a variety of automated, extensible, flexible, and/or scalable ways to achieve a variety of useful objectives (Kozura: [0083]).
Regarding claim 2, OCK (modified by Kozura) discloses the method of claim 1, as set forth above. In addition, Kozura further discloses receiving an input of permissions for access to the one or more clusters (see [0567]; Once you authorize Revolv with your Nest credentials, you will have access to all Nest Thermostats in the home).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Kozura with OCK to receive an input of permissions for access to the one or more clusters.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to enhance or optimize the actual operation of the devices themselves with respect to their immediate functions, and/or to “repurpose” that data in a variety of automated, extensible, flexible, and/or scalable ways to achieve a variety of useful objectives (Kozura: [0083]).
Regarding claim 7, OCK (modified by Kozura) discloses the method of claim 1, as set forth above. In addition, OCK further discloses wherein the one or more clusters include: an intelligence cluster; a presence cluster; or both the intelligence cluster and the presence cluster (see [0054]; examiner articulates that smart devices correspond to an intelligence cluster).
As for Claim 14, the claim lists all the same elements of claim 1, but in an electronic device (see OCK: “smart home server” in [0012]; also see [0059]-[0061] in view of Fig.1A:100 and 1B:100; also see Fig.2:100) comprising: a network interface (see OCK [0012]; also see [0066] in view of Fig.2:140); a processor (see OCK: Fig.2:160); and a computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions (see OCK Fig.2:170 in view of [0084]) to carry out the steps of claim 1, rather than the method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 14.
As for Claim 15, the claim depends on claim 14, but does not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 2. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 2.
As for Claim 20, the claim depends on claim 14, but does not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 7. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 7.
Regarding claim 21, OCK (modified by Kozura) discloses the electronic device of claim 14, as set forth above. In addition, OCK further discloses wherein the electronic device is a hub device (see “smart home server” in [0012]; also see [0059]-[0061] in view of Fig.1A:100 and 1B:100).
Claim(s) 3 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OCK et al. (hereinafter, OCK, EP 3355521 A1) in view of Kozura et al. (hereinafter, Kozura, US 20190028338 A1) in view of Shaw (US 20040158618 A1).
Regarding claim 3, OCK (modified by Kozura) discloses the method of claim 2, as set forth above. OCK (modified by Kozura) does not explicitly disclose wherein the permissions determine to which attributes of the one or more clusters the partner device may subscribe.
Shaw discloses wherein the permissions determine to which attributes of the one or more clusters the partner device may subscribe (see [0007]; accessing profile information of a subscriber to identify services to which the subscriber has access, verifying that the subscriber is authorized to access a requested service).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Shaw with OCK and Kozura so that the permissions determine to which attributes of the one or more clusters the partner device may subscribe.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to verify that the subscriber is authorized to access a requested service and/or enable access to services available so that access may be limited to portions of the profile information (Kozura: see [0007], [0037] and [0105]).
As for Claim 16, the claim depends on claim 15, but does not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 3. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 3.
Claim(s) 4-5 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OCK et al. (hereinafter, OCK, EP 3355521 A1) in view of Kozura et al. (hereinafter, Kozura, US 20190028338 A1) in view of LEE et al. (hereinafter, LEE, US 20240007323 A1).
Regarding claim 4, OCK (modified by Kozura) discloses the method of claim 1, as set forth above. OCK (modified by Kozura) does not explicitly disclose the home network is a Matter network, wherein the virtual device is a virtual Matter device, and wherein the partner device is a Matter device.
LEE discloses wherein the home network is a Matter network, wherein the virtual device is a virtual Matter device, and wherein the partner device is a Matter device (see [0147]-[0149]; IoT standard protocol called ‘Matter’… Formerly known as Project CHIP (Connected Home over IP)… is being supported by Amazon, Google, Signify (Philips Hue), SmartThings, and other major players in the smart home market; Matter devices can be easily set up using Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of LEE with OCK and Kozura so that the home network is a Matter network, wherein the virtual device is a virtual Matter device, and wherein the partner device is a Matter device.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated so that all smart devices will now work seamlessly without having to worry about manufacturers or platforms (LEE: see [0148]).
Regarding claim 5, OCK (modified by Kozura and LEE) discloses the method of claim 4, as set forth above. In addition, LEE further discloses wherein the receiving the request to subscribe to the cluster comprises: receiving a Matter SubscribeRequestMessage to request to subscribe to the cluster (see [0219]; ThinQ cloud can send a subscription request message for a new CHIP device to the Amazon cloud).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of LEE with OCK and Kozura so that the receiving the request to subscribe to the cluster comprises: receiving a Matter SubscribeRequestMessage to request to subscribe to the cluster.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated so that all smart devices will now work seamlessly without having to worry about manufacturers or platforms (LEE: see [0148]).
As for Claims 17-18, the claims depend on claim 14, but do not teach or further define over the limitations in claims 4-5 respectively. Therefore, claims 17-18 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claims 4-5 respectively.
Claim(s) 6 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OCK et al. (hereinafter, OCK, EP 3355521 A1) in view of Kozura et al. (hereinafter, Kozura, US 20190028338 A1) in view of LEE et al. (hereinafter, LEE, US 20240007323 A1) in view of LYU (WO 2023092504 A1).
Regarding claim 6, OCK (modified by Kozura and LEE) discloses the method of claim 4, as set forth above, including publishing the attribute of the cluster to the partner device (see [0421]; also see [0423]). OCK (modified by Kozura and LEE) does not explicitly disclose publishing to the partner device in a Matter ReportDataMessage.
LYU discloses publishing to the partner device in a Matter ReportDataMessage (see description of step S23-S24 on page 7 (English Translation); The target device sends a ReportData message to the proxy device, which includes subscription data of the C1 resource, such as the status of the C1 resource; the proxy device can send a ReportData message to the client device, which includes subscription data of the subscribed C1 resource).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of LYU with OCK, Kozura and LEE to publish the attribute of the cluster to the partner device in a Matter ReportDataMessage.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to send subscription data of the subscribed resource (LYU: see description of step S23-S24 on page 7 (English Translation)).
As for Claim 19, the claim depends on claim 17, but does not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 6. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 6.
Additional References
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wong et al. (US 7636753 B2) discloses controlling access to presence information according to a variety of different access permission types.
Lee et al. (US 20140167931 A1) controls a home device remotely in a home network.
Ko et al. (US 20070089055 A1) outputs a user interface event of 3rd party device in home network.
BEN-EZRA et al. (US 20090183236 A1) teaches authorization rules that define what presence attributes may be provided to the subscriber.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANDARVA KHANAL whose telephone number is (571)272-8107. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI, 0800-1700.
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, Kamal B Divecha can be reached at 571-272-5863. 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.
/SANDARVA KHANAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453
Prosecution Insights