DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claims 1-23 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 9, filed 12/29/2025, with respect to Claims 1-23 with regards to the double patenting have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Double patenting rejection of claims 1-23 has been withdrawn.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case,
Bi teaches remotely monitoring home automation devices/appliances over a network using heartbeat/state data transmitted from the appliance to a remote system for determining operational status. Bi further teaches notifying a user regarding device status, including whether a device is offline. Bi therefore teaches the general remote appliance monitoring environment recited in the claims.
Parthasarathy teaches analyzing sensed parameter values over time, including comparing values occurring during different time windows and determining whether sensed behavior indicates proper or faulty operation based on changes, oscillations, constant values, or other detected patterns.
Finnegan similarly teaches a client-side mobile application for receiving status information associated with smart home devices and appliances. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Finnegan’s client application techniques to be applicable to Bi’s remote appliance monitoring system in order to permit a user to remotely monitor appliance operational status through a mobile device interface.
Jun teaches that such appliances conventionally include processors and memories accessible by the processors. Incorporating such well-known hardware structure into Bi’s appliance system would have been nothing more than use of known and conventional appliance controller architecture.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Parthasarathy’s parameter-analysis techniques into the remote appliance monitoring system of Bi and Finnegan in order to improve the ability of the system to automatically determine appliance operation status, detect abnormal behavior, and provide more reliable operational monitoring and user notification.
With respect to applicant's arguments on pages 8-10, applicant’s argue Parthasarathy does not disclose compare a first value of the parameter associated with a first set of state data received at a first time with a second value of the parameter associated with a second set of state data received at a second time later than the first time; and when the operation of the application program determines that the first value of the parameter is not equal to the second value of the parameter cause a client device display to present a first indicator indicating that the system is operating correctly. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claim 1 does not require that any two different values conclusively establish correct operation, nor does the claim require distinguishing all normal oscillations from all abnormal oscillators based solely on two sampled values. Rather, the claim broadly recites comparing parameter values at different times and, when the values are not equal, presenting an indication that the system is operating correctly.
Parthasarathy teaches monitoring parameter values over time and determining whether sensed behavior indicates faulty or non-faulty operation. For example, Parthasarathy teaches that faulty sensors may transmit constant or nearly constant values, including minimum values, maximum values, or values within only a small range. Thus, although Parthasarathy recognizes that some changing values may still correspond to abnormal oscillations, Parthasarathy nevertheless teaches that changing values over time are indicative of sensor behavior distinct from the fault conditions associated with constant or nearly constant values. Parthasarathy teaches comparing parameter values over time and using the results of such comparison to determine operational status, including distinguishing fault conditions associated with constant values from non-fault conditions associated with changing values.
With respect to claim 20, Parthasarathy teaches comparing sensed parameter values with inferred expected values to determine whether a monitored system is operating incorrectly. For example, Parthasarathy discloses comparing trend reversal values and other sensed data against specified or expected values to determine whether the values are sufficiently close to expected operation. [0033] further discloses declaring a fault when the measured behavior deviates from the expected behavior or threshold values. [0033]-[0034] teaches comparing a first parameter value with an inferred expected value of the parameter and, when the values differ, presenting an indication that the system is operating incorrectly.
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 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, 7-12, 18-21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bi (US 2017/0257226, hereinafter Bi) and in view of Parthasarathy (US 2015/0124849, hereinafter Parthasarathy) and in view of Finnegan (US 2019/0132396, hereinafter Finnegan) and in view of Jun (US 2023/0083403, hereinafter Jun).
With respect to claim 1, Bi discloses a system for remotely monitoring an appliance by a client device operating over a network, comprising:
an appliance controller coupled to the appliance and arranged for communication with the client device over the network, the appliance controller having an appliance processor configured to send state data regarding the appliance to the client device over the network, the state data including a parameter ([0019]-[0021], home automation device periodically sends heartbeat packages to the cloud server which contains a timestamp and is considered online when the heartbeat is received every 10, 20, or 30 seconds).
Bi does not disclose, however Parthasarathy discloses compare a first value of the parameter associated with a first set of state data received at a first time with a second value of the parameter associated with a second set of the state data received at a second time later than the first time ([0030]-[0031], detect an anomaly or pattern if the temperature sensor at a specific value and not sending temperature data or is sending data that is of a near constant value with no temperature changes. [0033], determining if the temperature readings from the temperature sensor is increasing or decreasing); and
when the operation of the application program determines that the first value of the parameter is not equal to the second value of the parameter cause a client device display to present a first indicator indicating that the system is operating correctly ([0033]-[0034], detect oscillations where the temperature readings from the sensor indicate the temperature is increasing or decreasing. If the difference of averages is greater than the threshold, then the oscillations can be determined to be normal oscillations). Bi and Parthasarathy are analogous art because they disclose sensors communicatively coupled to a PC, mobile phone, a web appliance, etc. [0057].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the teachings of Bi’s smart device sensors with the sensors of Parthasarathy to determine if there are anomaly or patterns of the sensor readings. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings with one another in order to allow the system to determine if the sensor is stuck at a specific value or if they are normal for the location of the sensor.
Bi does not disclose, however Finnegan discloses an application program stored on and operable by the client device to ([0059], mobile application running on user’s device is used to receive status packet originated from smart home devices, appliances): and receiving the data packets at the client device ([0059], mobile application running on user’s device is used to receive status packet originated from smart home devices, appliances). Bi, Parthasarathy and Finnegan are analogous art because they disclose monitoring devices.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the teachings of Bi’s server receiving the data by the system of Finnegan’s user device receiving the appliance data to monitor the appliances at the user device. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings with one another in order to allow users monitor appliance data with an application on the user’s device.
Bi, Parthasarathy and Finnegan does not disclose, however Jun discloses an appliance memory accessible by the appliance processor ([0093], appliance may include a processor and a memory). Bi, Parthasarathy, Finnegan, and Jun are analogous art because they disclose monitoring devices.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the teachings of Bi and Finnegan’s appliances with the appliances of Jun’s which include a processor and memory. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings with one another in order to allow the appliances to perform functions by storing commands in the memory.
With respect to claim 7, one of ordinary level of skill in the art would have been compelled to make the proposed modification to Bi for the same reasons identified in the rejection of claim 1. In addition, Parthasarathy discloses cause the client device to present a second indicator when the application program determines that the first value of the parameter is equal to the second value of the parameter, the second indicator indicating that the system is not operating correctly ([0031]-[0033], detecting an anomaly in the temperature sensor to be incorrectly installed or at fault when the temperature sensory is stuck at a specific value or the temperature sent is too closed to a specified value).
With respect to claim 8, one of ordinary level of skill in the art would have been compelled to make the proposed modification to Bi for the same reasons identified in the rejection of claim 1. In addition, Parthasarathy discloses cause the presentation of the second indicator when the application program determines that the first value of the parameter is equal to multiple values of the parameter over a predetermined time interval, the second indicator indicating that the system is not operating correctly ([0031]-[0033], monitoring parameter values over time windows and declaring faults when abnormal conditions persist. A parameter value is equal to multiple values over a predetermined time interval and presenting an indication of incorrect operation. Detecting an anomaly in the temperature sensor to be incorrectly installed or at fault when the temperature sensory is stuck at a specific value or the temperature sent is too closed to a specified value within the time window).
With respect to claim 9, one of ordinary level of skill in the art would have been compelled to make the proposed modification to Bi for the same reasons identified in the rejection of claim 1. In addition, Finnegan discloses wherein the parameter comprises the data regarding the appliance subsystem controller ([0064]-[0065], provide functionality for user with a smart home system or any subsystem. Smart home system includes a controller to perform function).
With respect to claim 10, it is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 above. In addition, Finnegan discloses an appliance having an appliance subsystem and an appliance controller ([0064]-[0065], provide functionality for user with a smart home system or any subsystem. Smart home system includes a controller to perform function).
With respect to claim 12, one of ordinary level of skill in the art would have been compelled to make the proposed modification to Bi for the same reasons identified in the rejection of claim 1. In addition, Finnegan discloses wherein the parameter comprises the data regarding the appliance subsystem controller ([0064]-[0065], provide functionality for user with a smart home system or any subsystem. Smart home system includes a controller to perform function).
With respect to claim 19, Bi discloses wherein the application program is configured to cause the presentation of the second indicator only after repeated determinations that the first value of the parameter is equal to the second value of the parameter ([0019], if there is no new heartbeat packet for more than a certain amount of time, the smart home appliance is considered to be offline).
With respect to claims 11, and 18, they are similar to claims 7, 9, and therefore are rejected for the same reasons above.
With respect to claim 20, Bi discloses a system for remotely monitoring an appliance by a client device operating over a network, comprising:
the appliance state data including data regarding the appliance subsystem, and to send the appliance state data via the transmitter to the client device over the network, the appliance state data further including a parameter ([0019]-[0021], home automation device periodically sends heartbeat packages to the cloud server which contains a timestamp and is considered online when the heartbeat is received every 10, 20, or 30 seconds).
Bi does not disclose, however Parthasarathy discloses compare a first value of the parameter associated with multiple sets of the appliance state data received with an inferred expected value of the parameter over a predetermined time interval; ([0030]-[0031], detect an anomaly or pattern if the temperature sensor at a specific value and not sending temperature data or is sending data that is of a near constant value with no temperature changes. [0033], determining if the temperature readings from the temperature sensor is increasing or decreasing. A parameter value is equal to multiple values over a predetermined time interval and presenting an indication of incorrect operation. [0057] disclose sensors communicatively coupled to a PC, mobile phone, a web appliance, etc. Parthasarathy’s repeated sensor readings collected and analyzed within and across time windows.); and
when the operation of the application program determines that the first value of the parameter is different from the inferred expected value of the parameter for the multiple sets of appliance state data over the predetermined time interval, cause a client device user interface to present a first indicator indicating that the system is operating incorrectly, wherein the first value of the parameter of subsequent sets of the appliance state data are different ([0033]-[0034], detect oscillations where the temperature readings from the sensor indicate the temperature is increasing or decreasing. If the difference of averages is greater than the threshold, then the oscillations can be determined to be normal oscillations. [0039], indicates if faults are triggered). Bi and Parthasarathy are analogous art because they disclose sensors communicatively coupled to a PC, mobile phone, a web appliance, etc. [0057]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the teachings of Bi’s smart device sensors with the sensors of Parthasarathy to determine if there are anomaly or patterns of the sensor readings. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings with one another in order to allow the system to determine if the sensor is stuck at a specific value or if they are normal for the location of the sensor.
Bi and Parthasarathy does not disclose, however Finnegan discloses an appliance having an appliance subsystem and an appliance controller ([0064]-[0065], provide functionality for user with a smart home system or any subsystem. Smart home system includes a controller to perform function);
an application program stored on and operable by the client device to ([0059], mobile application running on user’s device is used to receive status packet originated from smart home devices, appliances): and receiving the data packets at the client device ([0059], mobile application running on user’s device is used to receive status packet originated from smart home devices, appliances). Bi, Parthasarathy and Finnegan are analogous art because they disclose monitoring devices.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the teachings of Bi’s server receiving the data by the system of Finnegan’s user device receiving the appliance data to monitor the appliances at the user device. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings with one another in order to allow users monitor appliance data with an application on the user’s device.
Bi, Parthasarathy and Finnegan does not disclose, however Jun discloses the appliance controller having an appliance processor, an appliance memory accessible by the appliance processor, and a transmitter arranged for communication with the client device over the network ([0085], transmitted from the appliance, [0093], appliance may include a processor and a memory); and
the appliance memory containing stored programming instructions operable by the processor to enable the processor to collect appliance state data ([0085], measurement value is transmitted from the appliance, [0094]-[0096], appliance may include a processor and a memory that performs certain functions and sends the commands stored in the memory of the appliance). Bi, Parthasarathy, Finnegan, and Jun are analogous art because they disclose monitoring devices.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the teachings of Bi and Finnegan’s appliances with the appliances of Jun’s which include a processor and memory. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings with one another in order to allow the appliances to perform functions by storing commands in the memory.
With respect to claim 21, one of ordinary level of skill in the art would have been compelled to make the proposed modification to Bi for the same reasons identified in the rejection of claim 20. In addition, Parthasarathy discloses wherein the first indicator is presented on the user interface only after a predetermined time following the determination that the first value of the parameter is different than to the inferred expected value ([0030]-[0033], detect an anomaly or pattern if the temperature sensor at a specific value and not sending temperature data or is sending data that is of a near constant value with no temperature changes within the time window);
With respect to claim 23, one of ordinary level of skill in the art would have been compelled to make the proposed modification to Bi for the same reasons identified in the rejection of claim 20. In addition, Parthasarathy discloses wherein the application program is operable by the device to compare a subsequent set of appliance state data having a second value of the parameter and received at the client device at a second time with a subsequent inferred expected value of the parameter, and to cause the client device to present a second indicator indicating that the system is operating correctly when the operation of the application program determines that the subsequent inferred expected value is consistent with the second value of the parameter ([0033]-[0034], detect oscillations where the temperature readings from the sensor indicate the temperature is increasing or decreasing. If the difference of averages is greater than the threshold, then the oscillations can be determined to be normal oscillations. [0039], indicates if faults are triggered).
Claims 2, 6, 13, 17, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bi and in view of Parthasarathy and in view of Finnegan and in view of Jun and in view of Daum (US 2003/0001721, hereinafter Daum).
With respect to claims 2 and 13, while Parthasarathy discloses in [0033] comparison by counting or incrementing the number of trend reversals within a time window, Bi, Finnegan, Jun do not disclose, however Daum discloses wherein the parameter comprises a counter value (2003/0001721, [0054], x is the counter setting in the appliance that expects the application communication center to use and see next). Bi, Parthasarathy, Finnegan, Jun, and Daum are analogous art because they disclose monitoring devices.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the teachings of Bi’s appliance of heartbeat messages which include the parameter of timestamps to include the parameters of Daum’s counter value. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings with one another in order to allow monitoring device know what the next expected data is to be.
With respect to claims 6 and 17, Bi, Parthasarathy, Finnegan and Jun do not disclose, however Daum discloses wherein the state data is further encrypted at the appliance controller prior to transmission to the client device, and further wherein the parameter comprises the bit-by- bit content of the encrypted state data ([0027], [0042], DATA is the variable number of bytes. The DATA field includes encryption to provide commands using an embedded cryptographic device). Bi, Parthasarathy, Finnegan, Jun, and Daum are analogous art because they disclose monitoring devices.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the teachings of Bi’s transmitting heartbeat messages which include the parameter of timestamps to include transmitting data that is encrypted. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings with one another in order to ensure a more secure system by encrypting the data.
With respect to claim 22, Bi, Parthasarathy, Finnegan and Jun do not disclose, however Daum discloses wherein the parameter is an incrementing sequence value ([0054], x is the counter setting in the appliance that expects the application communication center to use and see next). Bi, Parthasarathy, Finnegan, Jun, and Daum are analogous art because they disclose monitoring devices.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the teachings of Bi’s appliance of heartbeat messages which include the parameter of timestamps to include the parameters of Daum’s counter value. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings with one another in order to allow monitoring device know what the next expected data is to be.
Claims 3-4 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bi and in view of Parthasarathy and in view of Finnegan and in view of Jun and in view of Nath (US 2008/0247313, hereinafter Nath).
With respect to claims 3 and 14, Bi, Parthasarathy, Finnegan and Jun do not disclose, however Nath discloses wherein the parameter comprises a timestamp ([0053] sensor reading is using hash function on their time stamps). Bi, Parthasarathy, Finnegan, Jun, and Nath are analogous art because they disclose monitoring devices.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the teachings of Parthasarathy’s appliance sensors temperature to include the parameters of Nath’s hash function on the time stamps. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings with one another in order to determine if the sensor is stuck at a specific value.
With respect to claims 4 and 15, Bi, Parthasarathy, Finnegan and Jun do not disclose, however Nath discloses wherein the parameter comprises a hash value ([0053] using hash function on their time stamps). Bi, Parthasarathy, Finnegan, Jun, and Nath are analogous art because they disclose monitoring devices.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the teachings of Bi’s appliance of heartbeat messages which include the parameter of timestamps to include the parameters of Nath’s hash function on the time stamps. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings with one another in order to associate the timestamps in a comparison
Claims 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bi and in view of Parthasarathy and in view of Finnegan and in view of Jun and in view of Alanazi (US 2021/0152578, hereinafter Alanazi ).
With respect to claims 5 and 16, Bi, Parthasarathy, Finnegan and Jun do not disclose, however Alanazi discloses wherein the parameter comprises an entropy value ([0004], add an entropy factor to the data traffic from communication devices connected to the network). Bi, Parthasarathy, Finnegan, Jun, and Alanazi are analogous art because they disclose monitoring devices.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the teachings of transmission of packets with the entropy value of Alanazi so any packets can be sent in any order. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings with one another in order to have the appliances send information without any particular order.
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 HO T SHIU whose telephone number is (571)270-3810. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri (9:00am - 5:00pm).
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 Taylor can be reached at 571-272-3089. 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.
/HO T SHIU/Examiner, Art Unit 2443
HO T. SHIU
Examiner
Art Unit 2443
/CHRISTOPHER B ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443
Prosecution Insights