DETAILED ACTION
The current office action is in response to the communication filed on 11/26/24.
The applicant amended claims 1-3, 5-8 and 11 and cancelled claim 10 in the Preliminary Amendment received on 11/26/24.
Claims 1-9 and 11 are pending.
The Examiner recommends filing a written authorization for Internet communication in response to the present action. Doing so permits the USPTO to communicate with Applicant using Internet email to schedule interviews or discuss other aspects of the application. Without a written authorization in place, the USPTO cannot respond to Internet correspondence received from Applicant. The preferred method of providing authorization is by filing form PTO/SB/439, available at: https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms. See MPEP § 502.03 for other methods of providing written authorization.
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 listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The Examiner recommends the following title: “CLASSIFICATION AND PROVISIONING OF FUNCTIONALITY TO IOT DEVICES.”
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Typically abbreviations/acronyms are used after an expansion is provided to the abbreviations/acronyms. However, in the Abstract, “ID” is used before it is expanded. It is suggested to use expansions before using their abbreviations/acronyms. Appropriate correction is required.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Typically abbreviations/acronyms are used after an expansion is provided to the abbreviations/acronyms. However, in the Specification, “ID,” “PCT,” “WO,” “PCs,” “RAM,” “ROM,” “EPROM,” “EEPROM,” “CD-ROM,” “DSP,” etc. are used before they are expanded. It is suggested to use expansions before using their abbreviations/acronyms. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-9 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Typically abbreviations/acronyms are used after an expansion is provided to the abbreviations/acronyms. However, in claims 1-6, 8 and 11, the abbreviation/acronym “ID” is used before it is expanded. It is suggested to use expansions before using their abbreviations/acronyms. Appropriate correction is required.
The limitation “…one or more functions…” in claim 2, lines 2 and 7, should be “…the one or more functions…” (emphasis added) in order to resolve the lack of antecedent basis in the limitations. Appropriate correction is required. Similar corrections are required in claim 6, lines 2 and 7.
The limitation “…characteristics of the data…” in claim 2, line 5, should be “…the characteristics of the data…” (emphasis added) in order to resolve the lack of antecedent basis in the limitations. Appropriate correction is required. Similar corrections are required in claim 3, lines 1-2; claim 6, line 5 and claim 7, lines 1-2.
The limitation “…contextual metadata…” in claim 2, lines 5-6, should be “…the contextual metadata…” (emphasis added) in order to resolve the lack of antecedent basis in the limitations. Appropriate correction is required. Similar corrections are required in claim 3, lines 2 and 6; claim 6, line 5 and claim 7, lines 2 and 5.
The limitation “…the code…” in claim 11, line 2, should be “…the computer readable code…” (emphasis added) in order to resolve the lack of antecedent basis in the limitations. Appropriate correction is required.
The limitation “…the virtual asset…” in claim 11, lines 4-5, should be “…[[the]] a virtual asset…” (emphasis added) in order to resolve the lack of antecedent basis in the limitations. Appropriate correction is required.
The limitation “…within the connection brokerage system.” in claim 11, line 11, should be “…within [[the]] a connection brokerage system.” (emphasis added) in order to resolve the lack of antecedent basis in the limitations. Appropriate correction is required.
All dependent claims are objected to as having the same deficiencies as the claims they depend from.
Note: For examination purposes, the claims will be interpreted based on the claim language suggested by the Examiner.
Examiner’s Comments
The Examiner provides the following comments regarding the interpretation of the claim limitations:
Based on the description in the Specification ([0097]-[0098]) and Fig. 10, the “system comprising a connection brokerage system, a computing device external to the connection brokerage system, and at least one agent running on the computing device” recited in claims 8-9 is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 101 as a patent eligible statutory category because the Specification and Figure(s) clearly describe a hardware environment.
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.
Claims 1-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Petit et al.” (US PGPUB 2021/0058265) (Hereinafter Petit) in view of “Harat et al.” (US PGPUB 2020/0021504) (Hereinafter Harat).
With respect to claim 1, Petit teaches a method of dynamically provisioning functionality (Abstract) associated with a virtual asset (virtualized object; [0026], [0151]) registered in a connection brokerage system (network management element (2); Figs. 1 and 4-5, [0103]), the method comprising:
receiving data from a data source (virtualization device receives the declaration of the object (data source) and receives the features of the object that has just been declared; Figs. 1 and 4-5, [0152]-[0158]);
determining, using the data, one or more functions provided by the data source based on determined contextual metadata for the data source (virtualization device virtualizes the object, that is to say creates a data structure and a set of associated software (or hardware) features, called avatar (AV), for the object. The avatar is a software overlayer of the object that possesses/has the functions and the flows of the object. The avatar comprises a structure carrying the basic features of the connected object and a structure carrying the possible enrichment features of the object with the associated implementation programs; Figs. 1 and 4-5, [0159]); and
updating the registry entry for the virtual asset with service descriptors associating the determined one or more functions with the data source (virtualization device virtualizes the object, that is to say creates a data structure and a set of associated software (or hardware) features, called avatar (AV), for the object. The avatar is a software overlayer of the object that possesses/has the functions and the flows of the object. The avatar comprises a structure carrying the basic features of the connected object and a structure carrying the possible enrichment features of the object with the associated implementation programs; Figs. 1 and 4-5, [0159]),
wherein the service descriptors allow the virtual asset to offer access to the one or more functions as a service within the connection brokerage system (the virtualized object has an avatar comprising at least the basic features of the connected object, a proxy for accessing it in a transparent manner via the address of the avatar, and a graphical representation; Figs. 1 and 4-5, [0171]).
Petit does not teach a data source having a class ID stored in a registry entry for the virtual asset; and determining, using the data and the class ID, one or more functions.
However, Harat teaches a data source having a class ID stored in a registry entry for the virtual asset (receiving from an IoT device a device response pattern comprising an ID and a plurality of attributes of the IoT device and comparing, the device response pattern with stored response patterns in an IoT hub. An IoT device type refers to an IoT device class grouping a plurality of different implementations of IoT devices; Figs. 1-2, [0028], [0031], [0043], [0049]); and
determining, using the data and the class ID, one or more functions (deriving, upon identifying a pattern difference between the device response pattern and the matching stored response pattern, therefrom a new function. The new function is identifiable by the attributes of the new IoT device; Figs. 1-2, [0028], [0031], [0043], [0049]-[0050]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate using class identifiers to determine device functions to Petit because Petit discloses determining software and/or hardware device features ([0159]) and Harat suggests using class identifiers to determine device functions ([0050]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Harat in the Petit system in order to enhance device functionality.
With respect to claim 2, Petit as modified teaches the method according to claim 1. Harat further teaches wherein determining, using the data and the class ID, one or more functions provided by the data source based on the determined contextual metadata for the data source comprises: determining characteristics of the data; determining, based on characteristics of the data and the class ID for the data source, contextual metadata for the data source (receiving from an IoT device a device response pattern comprising an ID and a plurality of attributes of the IoT device and comparing, the device response pattern with stored response patterns in an IoT hub. An IoT device type refers to an IoT device class grouping a plurality of different implementations of IoT devices; Figs. 1-2, [0028], [0031], [0043], [0049]); and determining one or more functions provided by the data source based on the determined contextual metadata for the data source (deriving, upon identifying a pattern difference between the device response pattern and the matching stored response pattern, therefrom a new function. The new function is identifiable by the attributes of the new IoT device; Figs. 1-2, [0028], [0031], [0043], [0049]-[0050]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate using class identifiers to determine device functions to Petit because Petit discloses determining software and/or hardware device features ([0159]) and Harat suggests using class identifiers to determine device functions ([0050]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Harat in the Petit system in order to enhance device functionality.
With respect to claim 3, Petit as modified teaches the method according to claim 2. Harat further teaches wherein determining, based on characteristics of the data and the class ID for the data source, contextual metadata for the data source comprises: comparing the characteristics of the data with characteristics of data from one or more other data sources; and determining contextual metadata for the data based on results of the comparison (receiving from an IoT device a device response pattern comprising an ID and a plurality of attributes of the IoT device and comparing, the device response pattern with stored response patterns in an IoT hub. An IoT device type refers to an IoT device class grouping a plurality of different implementations of IoT devices; Figs. 1-2, [0028], [0031], [0043], [0049]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate comparing data characteristics from multiple sources to Petit because Petit discloses determining software and/or hardware device features ([0159]) and Harat suggests comparing data characteristics from multiple sources ([0049]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Harat in the Petit system in order to enhance device functionality.
With respect to claim 4, Petit as modified teaches the method according to claim 3. Harat further teaches wherein the one or more other data sources are selected using the class ID (receiving from an IoT device a device response pattern comprising an ID and a plurality of attributes of the IoT device and comparing, the device response pattern with stored response patterns in an IoT hub. An IoT device type refers to an IoT device class grouping a plurality of different implementations of IoT devices; Figs. 1-2, [0028], [0031], [0043], [0049]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate comparing data characteristics from multiple sources to Petit because Petit discloses determining software and/or hardware device features ([0159]) and Harat suggests comparing data characteristics from multiple sources ([0049]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Harat in the Petit system in order to enhance device functionality.
With respect to claim 5, Petit as modified teaches the method according to claim 3. Harat further teaches wherein the contextual metadata is determined based on the results of the comparison and the class ID (receiving from an IoT device a device response pattern comprising an ID and a plurality of attributes of the IoT device and comparing, the device response pattern with stored response patterns in an IoT hub. An IoT device type refers to an IoT device class grouping a plurality of different implementations of IoT devices; Figs. 1-2, [0028], [0031], [0043], [0049]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate comparing data characteristics from multiple sources to Petit because Petit discloses determining software and/or hardware device features ([0159]) and Harat suggests comparing data characteristics from multiple sources ([0049]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Harat in the Petit system in order to enhance device functionality.
With respect to claim 6, Petit as modified teaches the method according to claim 1. Harat further teaches wherein determining, using the data and the class ID, one or more functions provided by the data source based on the determined contextual metadata for the data source comprises: determining characteristics of the data; determining, based on characteristics of the data, contextual metadata for the data source (receiving from an IoT device a device response pattern comprising an ID and a plurality of attributes of the IoT device and comparing, the device response pattern with stored response patterns in an IoT hub. An IoT device type refers to an IoT device class grouping a plurality of different implementations of IoT devices; Figs. 1-2, [0028], [0031], [0043], [0049]); and determining one or more functions provided by the data source based on the determined contextual metadata for the data source and the class ID (deriving, upon identifying a pattern difference between the device response pattern and the matching stored response pattern, therefrom a new function. The new function is identifiable by the attributes of the new IoT device; Figs. 1-2, [0028], [0031], [0043], [0049]-[0050]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate using class identifiers to determine device functions to Petit because Petit discloses determining software and/or hardware device features ([0159]) and Harat suggests using class identifiers to determine device functions ([0050]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Harat in the Petit system in order to enhance device functionality.
With respect to claim 7, Petit as modified teaches the method according to claim 6. Harat further teaches wherein determining, based on characteristics of the data, contextual metadata for the data source comprises: comparing the characteristics of the data with characteristics of data from one or more other data sources; and determining contextual metadata for the data based on results of the comparison (receiving from an IoT device a device response pattern comprising an ID and a plurality of attributes of the IoT device and comparing, the device response pattern with stored response patterns in an IoT hub. An IoT device type refers to an IoT device class grouping a plurality of different implementations of IoT devices; Figs. 1-2, [0028], [0031], [0043], [0049]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate comparing data characteristics from multiple sources to Petit because Petit discloses determining software and/or hardware device features ([0159]) and Harat suggests comparing data characteristics from multiple sources ([0049]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Harat in the Petit system in order to enhance device functionality.
The limitations of claim 8 are rejected in the analysis of claim 1 above and this claim is rejected on that basis.
With respect to claim 9, Petit as modified teaches the system according to claim 8. Petit further teaches further comprising the data source (Fig. 1 shows a network management element and terminal equipment (data source(s)), called connected objects or more simply objects, connected to a local area network; Fig. 1, [0102]-[0104]).
The limitations of claim 11 are rejected in the analysis of claim 1 above and this claim is rejected on that basis.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Kuo et al. US 10,397,303. Discloses providing semantic translation for IoT devices and representations of the IoT devices.
Baez et al. US 2017/0123389. Discloses managing internet of things collection having different capabilities.
Hardin et al. US 2021/0103842. Discloses facilitation of predictive internet-of-things device identification.
Green et al. US 2016/0294950. Discloses registering a virtual requestor device with a registrar computer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Johnny B Aguiar whose telephone number is (571)272-3563. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 7:30 am - 5:30 pm EST.
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, Joon Hwang can be reached on (571) 272-4036. 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.
/JOHNNY B AGUIAR/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2447
June 29, 2026
Prosecution Insights