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 .
DETAILED ACTION
2. This action is in response to the Response to Election/Restriction filed March 25, 2026.
3. Claims 1-7 and 19-20 have been examined and are pending with this action.
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-7 and 19-20, drawn to "initial configuration or provisioning", classified in H04L
41/0806.
II. Claims 8-18, drawn to "using machine learning", classified in G06F30/27.
4. The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because: Inventions of
Group I and Group Il are unrelated. Inventions are unrelated if it can be shown that they are not
disclosed as capable of use together and they have different designs, modes of operation, and effects (MPEP § 802.01 and § 806.06). In the instant case, the different inventions clearly have
a different mode of operation and effect.
Independent claims of Group I recited in general identifying actions, establishing actions that are performable by devices, receiving input indicative of a selection of an action, and configuring the device to perform the action. Group II merely recited obtaining vector, training a machine learning model using the vectors, and outputting a recommendation to create a virtual device.
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.
In the Response to Election/Restriction filed March 25, 2026, the applicant elected Group I (Claim 1-7 and 19-20) and withdrew claims 8-18, without traverse.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
5. Claims 1-3, 5-7 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Banerjee et al. (US 9,516,033 B2).
INDEPENDENT:
As per claim 1, Banerjee teaches a method for configuring a virtual device that is representative of a combination of a pair of physical devices (see Banerjee, Abstract: “A method includes generating a virtual device based on one or more physical devices”), the method comprising:
identifying
(i) a first set of actions that are performable by a first one of the pair of physical devices (see Banerjee, Abstract: “mapping multiple device actions of the one or more physical devices to multiple device actions of the virtual device exposed by the virtual device”; col.5, lines 34-43: “which provides input in the form of one or more abstract action descriptions to an abstract action access control policy component 312, which ultimately facilitates access determinations in connection with one or more individuals (such as Individual1, Individual2, and Individual 3, as depicted in FIG. 3). Typical examples of device actions can include speed control of the drum in a washing machine, volume control of a radio, volume control of a television, and temperature control of air conditioner”; and col.6, lines 40-44: “a mapping between the various users (such as users 418, 420, 422 and 424) and the abstract actions (such as those identified in repository 414) to which each given user (or user role) has access”), and
(ii) a second set of actions that are performable by a second one of the pair of physical devices (see Banerjee, FIG.4; Abstract: “mapping multiple device actions of the one or more physical devices to multiple device actions of the virtual device exposed by the virtual device”; col.3, lines 57-61: “a first physical device 108 and a second physical device 112. The first physical device 108 includes PBAC 110 in the form of extensible markup language (XML) access control markup language (XACML), and the second physical device 112 includes DAC 114 in the form of XACML.”; and col.7, lines 3-9: “Each of the multiple device actions of the one or more physical devices includes a capability associated with a given physical device, while each of the multiple device actions of the virtual device includes an action derived from one or more device actions of the one or more physical devices that is applicable to one or more of the physical devices.”);
establishing, based on an analysis of the first and second sets of actions, a third set of actions that are performable by the virtual device (see Banerjee, col.5, lines 59-67: “Real actions include actual device capability such as, for example, turning a device on or off, increasing or decreasing volume on a specific device, etc. Abstract actions include actions composed from one or more real actions on one or more devices. A typical example can include a volume decrease, which can refer to decreasing the volume of a radio and/or television. In at least one embodiment of the invention, only abstract actions are exposed to external users.”; col.6, lines 14-24: “A second type of rule implemented by at least one embodiment of the invention includes a rule in which an antecedent or a consequent contains a virtual action. A virtual action, as noted above, is an action that is not directly tied to a specific device capability. For example, such a rule might include the following: TurnOffAllEntertainmentvirtual →TV.off and Radio.off. With this example rule, TurnOffAllEntertainmentvirtual is a virtual action introduced by the user. Virtual actions can also be exposed as abstract actions as well”; and col.6, lines 35-39: “As used herein, an “abstract action” is an action that applies to a single device, whereas a “virtual abstract action” is an action that applies to multiple devices. A virtual abstract action can include cases wherein there are multiple actions on the same device.”),
wherein each action in the third set of actions involves at least one action in the first set of actions being performed by the first physical device and at least one action in the second set of actions being performed by the second physical device (see Banerjee, FIG. 4; col.5, lines 59-67: “Real actions include actual device capability such as, for example, turning a device on or off, increasing or decreasing volume on a specific device, etc. Abstract actions include actions composed from one or more real actions on one or more devices. A typical example can include a volume decrease, which can refer to decreasing the volume of a radio and/or television. In at least one embodiment of the invention, only abstract actions are exposed to external users.”; col.6, lines 14-24: “A second type of rule implemented by at least one embodiment of the invention includes a rule in which an antecedent or a consequent contains a virtual action. A virtual action, as noted above, is an action that is not directly tied to a specific device capability. For example, such a rule might include the following: TurnOffAllEntertainmentvirtual →TV.off and Radio.off. With this example rule, TurnOffAllEntertainmentvirtual is a virtual action introduced by the user. Virtual actions can also be exposed as abstract actions as well”; and col.7, lines 3-9: “Each of the multiple device actions of the one or more physical devices includes a capability associated with a given physical device, while each of the multiple device actions of the virtual device includes an action derived from one or more device actions of the one or more physical devices that is applicable to one or more of the physical devices.”);
receiving input that is indicative of a selection of a given action from among the third set of actions that are performable by the virtual device (see Banerjee, Abstract: “a physical device-level partial ordering of actions to determine a resolution in response to a set of multiple user access requests for two or more of the multiple device actions of the virtual device”; col.1, lines 15-24: “there are often multiple users who are to be provided different levels of access to such user devices. Further, it may be desirable to provide restricted access to a given combinations of devices, rather than to individual devices. For example, it may be desired to allow an individual to set the temperature of a given room, only within a certain temperature range, and without giving the individual access to the individual fans and/or air conditioning units in the given room.”; col.1, lines 37-40: “Accordingly, a need exists for techniques that provide an abstract (virtual) device with abstract controls to provide the level of access that is intended and/or desired for a given setting”; and col.5, lines 1-21: “creating and/or providing an abstract (virtual) device such as AD 208 with abstract switches (controls) to provide the level of access that is intended and/or desired for each of one or more individuals. The abstract device 208 carries out the individual actions on the component devices via UI 202, UI 204 and UI 206 in accordance with a set of one or more access rules. A rule engine, resident in the abstract device 208, for example, generates such access rules based on the rules provided. For example, a user can provide one or more rules for the devices owned by that user.”); and
configuring the virtual device to perform the given action (see Banerjee, col.1, lines 56-62: “executing the two or more device actions of the virtual device on the virtual device for one or more given users in accordance with said resolution by coordinating the execution of two or more corresponding device actions of the one or more physical devices on the one or more physical devices based on said mapping.”; and col.8, lines 4-9: “and executing, in accordance with said collating, the two or more device actions of the virtual device on the virtual device by coordinating the execution of two or more corresponding device actions of the one or more physical devices on the one or more physical devices based on said mapping”).
As per claim 19, Banerjee teaches a non-transitory medium with instructions stored thereon that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising:
identifying a plurality of physical devices that operate in a networked environment and independently controllable (see Banerjee, Abstract: “A method includes generating a virtual device based on one or more physical devices; mapping multiple device actions of the one or more physical devices to multiple device actions of the virtual device exposed by the virtual device”; and col.10, lines 41-46: “the remote computer may be connected to the user's computer through any type of network, including a local area network (LAN) or a wide area network (WAN), or the connection may be made to an external computer (for example, through the Internet using an Internet Service Provider).”);
establishing, based on an analysis of usage of the plurality of physical devices, a first one of the plurality of physical devices that is used in combination with a second one of the plurality of physical devices (see Claim 1 rejection above);
receiving input that is indicative of a confirmation to create a virtual device by combining the first and second physical devices (see Claim 1 rejection above); and
configuring the virtual device to perform a function by implementing a rule for the first physical device, the second physical device, or the first and second physical devices (see Claim 1 rejection above).
DEPENDENT:
As per claim 2, which depends on claim 1, Banerjee teaches further comprising:
presenting, on an interface, a plurality of visual indicia that are representative of a plurality of physical devices that are collectively representative of a computing system, wherein the plurality of physical devices includes the pair of physical devices (see Banerjee, FIG. 2; and col.4, lines 58-63: “By way of illustration, FIG. 2 depicts a first user interface (UI) 202 (I1), a second UI 204 (I2), a third UI 206 (I3), and an abstract device (AD) 208 (AD1). By way of example, assume that UI 202 represents a control UI, UI 204 represents a management UI, UI 206 represents a repair UI, and AD 208 represents an entertainment device”);
receiving second input that is indicative of a selection of a first one of the plurality of visual indicia that corresponds to the first physical device (see Banerjee, Abstract: “a physical device-level partial ordering of actions to determine a resolution in response to a set of multiple user access requests for two or more of the multiple device actions of the virtual device”; col.1, lines 15-24: “For example, it may be desired to allow an individual to set the temperature of a given room, only within a certain temperature range, and without giving the individual access to the individual fans and/or air conditioning units in the given room.”; col.1, lines 37-40: “Accordingly, a need exists for techniques that provide an abstract (virtual) device with abstract controls to provide the level of access that is intended and/or desired for a given setting”; and col.5, lines 1-21: “creating and/or providing an abstract (virtual) device such as AD 208 with abstract switches (controls) to provide the level of access that is intended and/or desired for each of one or more individuals. The abstract device 208 carries out the individual actions on the component devices via UI 202, UI 204 and UI 206 in accordance with a set of one or more access rules. A rule engine, resident in the abstract device 208, for example, generates such access rules based on the rules provided. For example, a user can provide one or more rules for the devices owned by that user.”); and
receiving third input that is indicative of a selection of a second one of the plurality of visual indicia that corresponds to the second physical device (see Banerjee, Abstract: “a physical device-level partial ordering of actions to determine a resolution in response to a set of multiple user access requests for two or more of the multiple device actions of the virtual device”; col.1, lines 15-24: “For example, it may be desired to allow an individual to set the temperature of a given room, only within a certain temperature range, and without giving the individual access to the individual fans and/or air conditioning units in the given room.”; col.1, lines 37-40: “Accordingly, a need exists for techniques that provide an abstract (virtual) device with abstract controls to provide the level of access that is intended and/or desired for a given setting”; and col.5, lines 1-21: “creating and/or providing an abstract (virtual) device such as AD 208 with abstract switches (controls) to provide the level of access that is intended and/or desired for each of one or more individuals. The abstract device 208 carries out the individual actions on the component devices via UI 202, UI 204 and UI 206 in accordance with a set of one or more access rules. A rule engine, resident in the abstract device 208, for example, generates such access rules based on the rules provided. For example, a user can provide one or more rules for the devices owned by that user.”).
As per claim 3, which depends on claim 2, Banerjee further teaches wherein said identifying is performed in response to receiving the second and third inputs (see Claim 1 and Claim 2 rejections above, NOTE: Repeating prior taught steps does not patentably change the invention in terms of functionality).
As per claim 5, which depends on claim 1, Banerjee further teaches wherein the pair of physical devices includes at least two of a camera, a door lock, a doorbell, a light, a sensor, a robotic vacuum, a speaker, and an electrical outlet (see Banerjee, col.1, lines 25-32: “Additionally, the hospital room may include controls to adjust room temperature, lighting, bed position, etc., and a patient may also bring his or her own devices that need to be accessible to doctors and/or nurses.”; and col.5, lines 59-67: “Real actions include actual device capability such as, for example, turning a device on or off, increasing or decreasing volume on a specific device, etc. Abstract actions include actions composed from one or more real actions on one or more devices. A typical example can include a volume decrease, which can refer to decreasing the volume of a radio and/or television.”).
As per claim 6, which depends on claim 1, Banerjee further teaches wherein said identifying comprises: generating the first set of actions based on an analysis of usage of the first physical device, and generating the second set of actions based on an analysis of usage of the second physical device (see Banerjee, Abstract: “a physical device-level partial ordering of actions to determine a resolution in response to a set of multiple user access requests for two or more of the multiple device actions of the virtual device”).
As per claim 7, which depends on claim 1, Banerjee further teaches wherein said configuring comprises: implementing a rule for the first physical device, the second physical device, or the first and second physical devices, such that the virtual device is configured to perform a function (see Banerjee, col.2, lines 64-67: “Such an abstract device and related controls can carry out individual actions on one or more component devices in accordance with a set of one or more access rules”).
As per claim 20, which depends on claim 19, Banerjee further teaches wherein the operations further comprise:
establishing a first location of the first physical device (see Banerjee, col.7, lines 52-55: “Additionally, the context attributes can include user location and/or one or more social networking connections associated with the one or more given users.”);
establishing a second location of the second physical device (see Banerjee, col.7, lines 52-55: “Additionally, the context attributes can include user location and/or one or more social networking connections associated with the one or more given users.”); and
permitting configuration of the virtual device in response to a determination, based on an analysis of the first and second locations, that the first and second physical devices are located in a same environment or are otherwise logically associated with each other (see Banerjee, col.7, lines 37-42: “embodiment of the invention can include generating an access control matrix for mapping said role associated with each of the one or more given users and each of the multiple device actions of the virtual device to which each role has access.”; col.7, lines 52-55: “Additionally, the context attributes can include user location and/or one or more social networking connections associated with the one or more given users.”; and col.12, lines 13-15: “dynamically generating a virtual device to facilitate controlling user access to one or more individual physical devices.”).
Claim Objections
6. Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner' s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art of record does not disclose, teach, or suggest neither singly nor in combination the claimed limitation of “checking, in response to receiving the second and third inputs, compatibility of the first and second physical devices, so as to ensure that the first and second physical devices are combinable to create the virtual device” as recited in dependent claim 4.
Conclusion
7. For the reasons above, claims 1-3, 5-7 and 19-20 have been rejected, claim 4 has been objected to, and claims 1-7 and 19-20 remain pending.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL Y WON whose telephone number is (571)272-3993. The examiner can normally be reached on Wk.1: M-F: 8-5 PST & Wk.2: M-Th: 8-7 PST.
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, Nicholas R Taylor can be reached on 571-272-3889. 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.
/Michael Won/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443
Prosecution Insights