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 .
Double Patenting
The non statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 2, 4-7 and 10-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-8, 11-16 of copending Application No. 18/907,827. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. In the table below, on the left side are the claims in the current application that conflict with claims in the ‘827 application.
18/932,342 (present application)
18/907,827
Claim 1: A method comprising: providing, by a computing device, an interface for customizing a future action in an object modeling platform;
1. A method, comprising:
providing, by a computing device, an interface for customizing an object template in an object modeling platform;
receiving, via a first portion of the interface, a request for a future action corresponding to an object instance created using the object template;
receiving, via a first portion of the interface, a request to provide a notification corresponding to an object instance created using the object template;
receiving, via a second portion of the interface, an indication of a cause that is to trigger an occurrence of the future action;
receiving, via a second portion of the interface, an indication of a cause that is to trigger a providing of the notification;
receiving, via a third portion of the interface, an indication of a manner in which the future action is to occur;
receiving, via a third portion of the interface, an indication of a manner in which the notification is to be provided;
customizing, by the computing device, the object template to cause the occurrence of the future action according to the indicated cause and the indicated manner; and
customizing, by the computing device, the object template to provide the notification according to the indicated cause and the indicated manner of the notification; and
causing, by the computing device, the future action to occur according to the indicated manner responsive to an occurrence of the indicated cause.
providing, by the computing device, the notification according to the indicated manner responsive to an occurrence of the indicated cause.
Claim 2: The method of claim 1, wherein the method includes: providing, via the first portion of the interface, a plurality of selectable future actions; and receiving, via the first portion of the interface, a selection of the future action from the plurality of selectable future actions.
Claim 8: The method of claim 1, wherein the method includes: providing, via the third portion of the interface, a plurality of selectable manners in which the notification is to be provided; and receiving, via the third portion of the interface, a selection of the indicated manner from the plurality of selectable manners.
Claim 4: The method of claim 1, wherein the method includes: providing, via the second portion of the interface, a plurality of selectable causes to trigger the occurrence of the future action; and receiving, via the second portion of the interface, a selection of the indicated cause from the plurality of selectable causes.
Claim 3: The method of claim 1, wherein the method includes: providing, via the second portion of the interface, a plurality of selectable causes to trigger a providing of the notification; and receiving, via the second portion of the interface, a selection of the indicated cause from the plurality of selectable causes.
Claim 5: The method of claim 1, wherein the indicated cause is a recurring cause.
Claim 4: The method of claim 1, wherein the indicated cause is a recurring cause.
Claim 6: The method of claim 5, wherein the indicated cause recurs according to a pre-determined schedule.
Claim 5: The method of claim 4, wherein the indicated cause recurs according to a pre-determined schedule.
Claim 7: The method of claim 1, wherein the indicated cause is an occurrence of an event.
Claim 6: The method of claim 1, wherein the indicated cause is an occurrence of an event.
Claim 10: The method of claim 1, wherein the indicated cause is a threshold associated with the object instance being exceeded.
Claim 7: The method of claim 1, wherein the indicated cause is a threshold associated with the object instance being exceeded.
Claim 11: The method of claim 1, wherein the method includes: providing, via the third portion of the interface, a plurality of selectable manners in which the future action is to occur; and receiving, via the third portion of the interface, a selection of the indicated manner from the plurality of selectable manners.
Claim 8: The method of claim 1, wherein the method includes: providing, via the third portion of the interface, a plurality of selectable manners in which the notification is to be provided; and receiving, via the third portion of the interface, a selection of the indicated manner from the plurality of selectable manners.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the above claims of the ‘827 application effectively teach the corresponding claims in the present application. In particular, claim 1 of the present application is almost identical to claim 1 of the ‘827 application, except that claim 1 of the present application refers to a “future action.” However, claim 1 of the ‘827 application teaches this term, since it provides an example of such a future action i.e., “to provide a notification.” These remarks apply to various dependent claims as well.
Claims 12 and 19 correspond to claim 1, and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 13-18 have almost identical language as claims 11-16 of the ‘827 application, and are likewise rejected.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-11 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation, “the object template.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 16 and 18, which depend from claim 10, recite the limitation, “the medium of claim 10, including instructions …” However, parent claims 1 and 10 do not recite a medium. For the purpose of examination, Examiner interprets the above limitation as meaning that the method of claim 1 is intended to include the operations recited in claims 16 and 18. To correct this issue, Examiner suggests amending claims 16 and 18 to instead depend on claim 12, which recites a medium, assuming that this is desired by Applicant.
Claims 2-11 and 17 are rejected for failing to cure the deficiencies of their respective parent claims.
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 1-7, 10-12, 14, 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie (US 2016/0170390) in view of Shearer (US 2015/0160797).
Regarding claim 1, Xie teaches a method, comprising:
providing, by a computing device, an interface for customizing a future action in an object modeling platform (Figs. 13, [0136-0140], a human-computer interface is provided, whereby a user can configure the execution of an action and a trigger condition that causes that action to take place; Fig. 10, [0124-0127] describes a device control system/platform that performs the operations of the invention);
receiving a request for a future action corresponding to an object instance created using the object template (Figs. 13, [0136-0140], a human-computer interface is provided, whereby a user can configure the execution of an action and a trigger condition that causes that action to take place; [0127-0128, 0149], the action and trigger are associated with a service rule template; [0186, 0176, 0127, 0149], the rule template is instantiated when the template is applied to a specific device, and the resulting rule instance performs the action in response to the trigger condition being met);
receiving an indication of a cause that is to trigger an occurrence of the future action (Figs. 13, [0136-0140], a human-computer interface is provided, whereby a user can configure the execution of an action and a trigger condition that causes that action to take place);
receiving an indication of a manner in which the future action is to occur ([0166-0171], the user may indicate many aspects of the manner in which the action is to be performs e.g., providing information relating to device, locations, contexts, multiple operations for the action; for example, the devices targeted for the actions might be a light and an air conditioners, and the actions applied to those devices might be activation of light and air conditioning etc., the location of those devices may be a living room etc.; see also [0139-0140], the configuring of the action may involve filling in various parameters, fields or values);
customizing, by the computing device, the object template to cause the occurrence of the future action according to the indicated cause and the indicated manner (Figs. 13, [0136-0140], a human-computer interface is provided, whereby a user can configure the execution of an action and a trigger condition that causes that action to take place; [0127-0128, 0149], the action and trigger are associated with a service rule template; ([0166-0171], the user may indicate many aspects of the manner in which the action is to be performs e.g., providing information relating to device, locations, contexts, multiple operations for the action; for example, the devices targeted for the actions might be a light and an air conditioners, and the actions applied to those devices might be activation of light and air conditioning etc., the location of those devices may be a living room etc.; see also [0139-0140], the configuring of the action may involve filling in various parameters, fields or values) and
causing, by the computing device, the future action to occur according to the indicated manner responsive to an occurrence of the indicated cause ([0186, 0157, 0176, 0127, 0149], the rule template is instantiated when the template is applied to a specific device, and the resulting rule instance performs the action in response to the trigger condition being met).
However, Xie does not expressly disclose the receiving the request for a future action via a first portion of the interface; the receiving the indication of a cause via a second portion of the interface; the receiving an indication of a manner in which the future action is to occur via a third portion of the interface.
In the same field of endeavor, Shearer teaches
the receiving the request for a future action via a first portion of the interface;
the receiving the indication of a cause via a second portion of the interface;
the receiving an indication of a manner in which the future action is to occur via a third portion of the interface (Fig. 10, [0069-0070], similarly, Shearer pertains to controlling a device based on causes/triggers and actions; Fig. 10 indicates an interface for setting up such controls and receiving configuration input from a user; a first section/window pertains to configuring the action; within that section, there are smaller rows/windows that help control the exact manner in which the action is taken e.g., what is done, what operations are comprised in the action etc.; for example, if the response action can comprises multiple different operations, the last two rows e.g., a third section/window, define whether the response action comprises activating particular outlets in different bedrooms, and the nature of those activations e.g., toggle or turn on; a second section/window pertains to configuring the trigger that causes the action, and likewise includes multiple selectable features/options/sections; more broadly, Fig. 10 indicates it is known to arrange different actions, triggers and associated features of the actions and triggers in different portions/windows in a single interface).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the receiving the request for a future action via a first portion of the interface; the receiving the indication of a cause via a second portion of the interface; the receiving an indication of a manner in which the future action is to occur via a third portion of the interface as suggested in Shearer into Xie because Xie and Shearer pertain to analogous fields of technology. Both Xie and Shearer pertain to automated systems for controlling devices, where the triggers and actions to be performed by devices can be configured by a user via an interface. In Shearer, for example, a graphical user interface can be presented in which the response action can be defined using various sections/windows, which allow a user to configure aspects of the response action e.g., defining multiple triggers and/or action that make up the overall response action. It would be desirable to incorporate this feature into Xie to enable the use of a variety of known interfaces to control the triggers and actions to be executed by a device e.g., see Shearer Fig. 10, [0069-0070].
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Xie and Shearer teaches the invention as claimed in claim 2. The combination of Xie and Shearer also teaches
providing, via the first portion of the interface, a plurality of selectable future actions; and
receiving, via the first portion of the interface, a selection of the future action from the plurality of selectable future actions (Shearer Fig. 10, [0069-0070], a user can select between future actions in a particular portion of the interface; see also Xie [0168-0170], a user can select labels from option boxes to configure a rule).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Xie and Shearer teaches the invention as claimed in claim 2. The combination of Xie and Shearer also teaches wherein the plurality of selectable future actions include:
an instance creation action;
an instance deletion action; and
an instance modification action (Xie [0127, 0136, 0139-0140, 0149], Xie teaches an interface for configuring a service rule template/instance i.e., templates may automatically be deployed as an instance; as noted in Xie [0139-0140], there are options in the interface enabling a user to perform configuration actions that involve creating or modifying parameters; see also Shearer Fig. 10, [0069-0070], the interface presents options enabling a user to perform configuration actions that involve toggling a setting e.g., deleting/modifying/creating a selection; all of these operations help control or manage instances i.e., instance creation/deletion/modification actions).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Xie and Shearer teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1. The combination of Xie and Shearer also teaches
providing, via the second portion of the interface, a plurality of selectable causes to trigger the occurrence of the future action; and
receiving, via the second portion of the interface, a selection of the indicated cause from the plurality of selectable causes (Shearer Fig. 10, [0069-0070], a user can select between causes/triggers in a particular portion of the interface; see also Xie [0168-0170], a user can select labels from option boxes to configure a rule).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Xie and Shearer teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1. The combination of Xie and Shearer also teaches wherein the indicated cause is a recurring cause (Xie [0171, 0136-0144, 0186], the trigger for a defined action in a rule is a recurring event/condition, predefined and configured by a user e.g., a user can cause the rule to trigger an action after 1 o’clock when the door of a room is open; see also Shearer Fig. 10, [0069-0070], which describes similar triggers/conditions).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Xie and Shearer teaches the invention as claimed in claim 5. The combination of Xie and Shearer also teaches wherein the indicated cause recurs according to a pre-determined schedule (Xie [0171, 0136-0144, 0186], the trigger for a defined action in a rule is recurring event/condition, predefined and configured by a user e.g., a user can cause the rule to trigger an action after 1 o’clock when the door of a room is open; see also Shearer Fig. 10, [0069-0070] , which describes similar triggers/conditions).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Xie and Shearer teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1. The combination of Xie and Shearer also teaches wherein the indicated cause is an occurrence of an event (Xie [0171, 0136-0144, 0186], the trigger for a defined action in a rule is recurring event/condition, predefined and configured by a user e.g., a user can cause the rule to trigger an action after 1 o’clock when the door of a room is open; see also Shearer Fig. 10, [0069-0070] , which describes similar triggers/conditions).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Xie and Shearer teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1. The combination of Xie and Shearer also teaches wherein the indicated cause is a threshold associated with the object instance being exceeded (Xie [0168-0171], the trigger/condition can involve various thresholds e.g., after a certain time, when a room is above a particular temperature etc.).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Xie and Shearer teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1. The combination of Xie and Shearer also teaches
providing, via the third portion of the interface, a plurality of selectable manners in which the future action is to occur; and
receiving, via the third portion of the interface, a selection of the indicated manner from the plurality of selectable manners (Shearer Fig. 10, [0069-0070], a user can select between different options for adjusting the manner in which the system will react to the trigger e.g., which device will participate in the reaction, which operation will a particular device perform etc.; see also Xie [0168-0170, 0140], a user can select labels from option boxes to configure any aspect of a rule).
Regarding claim 12, the claim corresponds to claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons. The combination of Xie and Shearer also teaches a non-transitory machine-readable medium having instructions stored thereon which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations (Xie Fig. 8, [0111] teaches a controller with a processor, memory and programs for performing operations).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Xie and Shearer teaches the invention as claimed in claim 12. The combination of Xie and Shearer also teaches display the first portion, the second portion, and the third portion in a single window in the interface (Shearer Fig. 10, [0069-0070], the control portions for configuring an action, aspects of the action and a trigger for the action are positioned within a single interface window/panel).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Xie and Shearer teaches the invention as claimed in claim 12. The combination of Xie and Shearer also teaches include, in the second portion, a plurality of selectable schedule options for causing the future action to occur (Shearer Fig. 10, [0069-0070], a user can select between causes/triggers in a particular portion of the interface; see also Xie [0168-0170], a user can select labels from option boxes to configure a rule).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Xie and Shearer teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1. The combination of Xie and Shearer also teaches a computing device for customizing an object template in an object modeling platform, comprising:
a user interface;
a processing resource; and
a memory resource storing non-transitory machine-readable instructions (Xie Figs. 13, [0136-0140], a human-computer interface is provided, whereby a user can configure the execution of an action and a trigger condition that causes that action to take place; Fig. 10, [0124-0127] describes a device control system/platform that performs the operations of the invention; Xie Fig. 8, [0111] teaches a controller with a processor, memory and programs for performing operations).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie and Shearer, as applied in claim 1, and further in view of Deutsch (US 2019/0138333).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Xie and Shearer teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1. However, the combination of Xie and Shearer does not expressly disclose wherein the object instance is a child instance, and wherein the indicated cause is a creation of a parent instance of the object instance.
In the same field of endeavor, Deutsch teaches
wherein the object instance is a child instance, and
wherein the indicated cause is a creation of a parent instance of the object instance (Fig. 11B, [0088, 0089, 0009, 0101], Deutsch also pertains to a system in which predefined triggers can cause devices or digital twins to perform particular actions; it is known that a trigger can be the creation of an instance of a digital twin/model, and which in turn triggers child instances e.g., representing an assembly or component; those in turn can result in the creation of further child instances e.g., a subassembly or subcomponent; see for example Fig. 11B, [0101, 0088-0089] in which there can be an instance group formed, whereby creation of an entity instance can result in the creation of multiple assembly/subassembly instances, which in turn can each lead to component instances etc.; thus an instance tree is formed).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated wherein the object instance is a child instance, and wherein the indicated cause is a creation of a parent instance of the object instance as suggested in Deutsch into Xie and Shearer because Xie and Deutsch pertain to analogous fields of technology. Both Xie and Deutsch pertain to systems that manage devices using user defined actions and triggers, which are associated with instances representing devices. In particular, Xie teaches an interface for configuring any aspects of such actions and triggers. In Deutsch, the creation of an entity instance can be a trigger for creating multiple child instances, each of which in turn can be trigger for creating multiple additional child instances. It would be desirable to incorporate this feature into Xie, so that a wide variety of known triggers related to instances could be used e.g., see Deutsch Fig. 11B, [0088, 0089, 0009, 0101].
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Xie and Shearer teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1. However, the combination of Xie and Shearer also teaches not expressly disclose wherein the object instance is a parent instance, and wherein the indicated cause is a creation of a plurality of child instances constituting a plurality of components of an object represented by the object instance.
In the same field of endeavor, Deutsch teaches
wherein the object instance is a parent instance, and
wherein the indicated cause is a creation of a plurality of child instances constituting a plurality of components of an object represented by the object instance (Fig. 11B, [0088, 0089, 0009, 0101], Deutsch also pertains to a system in which predefined triggers can cause devices or digital twins to perform particular actions; it is known that a trigger can be the creation of an instance of a digital twin/model, and which in turn triggers child instances e.g., representing an assembly or component; those in turn can result in the creation of further child instances e.g., a subassembly or subcomponent; see for example Fig. 11B, [0101, 0088-0089] in which there can be an instance group formed, whereby creation of an entity instance can result in the creation of multiple assembly/subassembly instances, which in turn can each lead to component instances etc.; thus an instance tree is formed; put another way, in Deutsch, there is an entity instance, a trigger can be the creation of multiple child instances, which in turn can cause the creation of additional child instances to form a tree; these child instances ultimately represent and correspond to components of the parent entity instance).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated wherein the object instance is a parent instance, and wherein the indicated cause is a creation of a plurality of child instances constituting a plurality of components of an object represented by the object instance as suggested in Deutsch into Xie and Shearer because Xie and Deutsch pertain to analogous fields of technology. Both Xie and Deutsch pertain to systems that manage devices using user defined actions and triggers, which are associated with instances representing devices. In particular, Xie teaches an interface for configuring any aspects of such actions and triggers. In Deutsch, the creation of an entity instance can be a trigger for creating multiple child instances, each of which in turn can be trigger for creating multiple additional child instances. It would be desirable to incorporate this feature into Xie, so that a wide variety of known triggers related to instances could be used e.g., see Deutsch Fig. 11B, [0088, 0089, 0009, 0101].
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie and Shearer, as applied in claim 12, and further in view of Home Assistant (YouTube video, “Home Assistant Actionable Notifications on iOS and Android,” published May 18, 2021, downloaded on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8fcwhko1k4&t=194s).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Xie and Shearer teaches the invention as claimed in claim 12. The combination of Xie and Shearer also teaches display the first portion and the second portion in separate windows in the interface (Shearer Fig. 10, [0069-0070] indicates an action being defined in one panel, and a trigger/cause for the action being defined in another panel).
However, the combination of Xie and Shearer does not expressly disclose display the third portion in a separate window in the interface.
In the same field of endeavor, Home Assistant teaches display the third portion in a separate window in the interface (5:39, 2:15-5:45, Home Assistant pertains to a user interface for controlling automation at a device; the user can define actions in one section and trigger/causes in another section; additionally, there are distinct panels/rows in the actions section that allow a user to define the action type e.g., call service/notification, and define the manner in which that action is undertaken e.g., specifying the message that is sent in the notification).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated display the third portion in a separate window in the interface as suggested in Home Assistant into Xie and Shearer because Xie/Shearer and Home Assistant pertain to analogous fields of technology. Xie/Shearer and Home Assistant pertain to systems and interfaces for controlling device automation and triggers. In Shearer, the interface can be divided into different, separate sections and windows, which pertain to actions, features of the actions, and triggers. It would be desirable to incorporate this feature into Xie/Shearer so that a variety of known interfaces can be used to define actions and triggers for an automation system e.g., see Home Assistant 2:15-5:45.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie and Shearer, as applied in claim 10, in view of Object Lifecycle (“Object Lifecycle Management,” downloaded from https://cloud.google.com/storage/docs/lifecycle#creationtime, published Oct. 28, 2024).
Object Lifecycle was submitted in an IDS dated 10/30/2024.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Xie and Shearer teaches the invention as claimed in claim 10. The combination of Xie and Shearer also teaches include, in the second portion, a field configured to receive an indication of an amount (Xie [0139, 0168-171], a user can select option boxes or otherwise configure trigger conditions, including a time based condition i.e., an action is undertaken after a specific time; as noted in Xie [0139], a field can be provided that a user can fill in with a suitable value).
However, the combination of Xie and Shearer does not expressly disclose the indication is an indication of an amount of time following a date particular to the object instance for causing the future action to occur.
In the same field of endeavor, Object Lifecycle teaches the indication is an indication of an amount of time following a date particular to the object instance for causing the future action to occur (page 5, it is known to define a condition in terms of defining a number of days that must pass since a customized time).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the indication is an indication of an amount of time following a date particular to the object instance for causing the future action to occur as suggested in Object Lifecycle into Xie/Shearer because Xie/Shearer and Object Lifecycle pertain to analogous fields of technology. Xie/Shearer pertains to a system in which a user can configure aspects of a time-focused trigger e.g., an action should be taken after a specified time. See Xie [0139, 0168-0171]. Object Lifecycle also pertains to defining a trigger/condition. In Object Lifecycle, a condition can be defined in terms of days since a specified time. It would be desirable to incorporate this feature into Xie/Shearer, so that a time-based trigger could be defined using a variety of known features and the methods e.g., see Object Lifecycle page 5.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie, Shearer and Object Lifecycle, as applied in claim 16, and further in view of Kobel (US 2023/0196688).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Xie, Shearer and Object Lifecycle teaches the invention as claimed in claim 16. However, the combination of Xie, Shearer and Object Lifecycle does not expressly disclose wherein the date particular to the object instance is a manufacturing date, a purchase date, or an installation date of an object represented by the object instance.
In the same field of endeavor, Kobel teaches wherein the date particular to the object instance is a manufacturing date, a purchase date, or an installation date of an object represented by the object instance ([0099], it is known when using an interface to manage and monitor a device, to indicate an installation or manufacture date as well as a time since then when the device has been in service).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated wherein the date particular to the object instance is a manufacturing date, a purchase date, or an installation date of an object represented by the object instance as suggested in Kobel into Xie, Shearer and Object Lifecycle because Xie and Kobel pertain to analogous fields of technology. Both Xie and Kobel relate to interfaces used to manage devices, and control triggers that cause actions to occur. In Kobel, an interface can indicate time since an installation/manufacturing date, which is used to trigger maintenance operations. It would be desirable to incorporate this feature into Xie/Shearer, so that variety of known triggers can be used e.g., see Kobel [0099].
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie and Shearer, as applied in claim 10, and further in view of Kobel.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Xie and Shearer teaches the invention as claimed in claim 10. The combination of Xie and Shearer also teaches include, in the second portion, a field (Xie [0139, 0168-171], a user can select option boxes or otherwise configure trigger conditions, including a time based condition i.e., an action is undertaken after a specific time; as noted in Xie [0139], a field can be provided that a user can fill in with a suitable value).
However, the combination of Xie and Shearer does not expressly disclose the field configured to associate a metric of an object represented by the object instance with a threshold for causing the future action to occur.
In the same field of endeavor, Kobel teaches the field configured to associate a metric of an object represented by the object instance with a threshold for causing the future action to occur ([0099], it is known when using an interface to manage and monitor a device, to indicate an installation or manufacture date as well as a time since then when the device has been in service; it is further known to take action e.g., replace the device, when the service life exceeds a threshold).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the field configured to associate a metric of an object represented by the object instance with a threshold for causing the future action to occur as suggested in Kobel into Xie and Shearer. Xie pertains to an interface that can be used to configure any aspect of a trigger, using fields. Kobel also pertains to defining a trigger. In Kobel, for example, a trigger may be when a service life of a device exceeds a threshold, which then causes a replacement/maintenance action. It would be obvious to modify the Xie invention to incorporate this feature i.e., to use the interface and fields described in Xie to define a trigger comparing a value to a threshold. It would be desirable to incorporate this feature into Xie so that the interface of Xie could be used to define triggers for devices in a variety of known ways e.g., see Kobel [0099].
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie and Shearer, as applied in claim 19, and further in view of Lee (US 11,627,134).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Xie and Shearer teaches the invention as claimed in claim 19. The combination of Xie and Shearer also teaches provide, via the interface, a notification ([0096], a notification message can be sent to the controller when a trigger has been satisfied).
However, the combination of Xie and Shearer does not expressly disclose the providing the notification before the future action is caused to occur; and include, in the notification, a display element selectable to stop the future action from occurring.
In the same field of endeavor, Lee teaches
the providing the notification before the future action is caused to occur; and
include, in the notification, a display element selectable to stop the future action from occurring (Lee Fig. 1, 4B, col. 2, lines 34-55, it is known, when alerting a person to an upcoming operation, to provide a button that when selected will cancel the planned operation).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the providing the notification before the future action is caused to occur; and include, in the notification, a display element selectable to stop the future action from occurring as suggested in Lee into Xie and Shearer, because Xie and Lee pertain to analogous fields of technology. Both Xie and Lee pertain to sending a notification when an action is triggered. In Lee, the notification allows a user to cancel the action. It would be desirable to incorporate this feature into the notifications of Xie, so that greater control can be obtained over planned actions e.g., see Lee Fig. 1, 4B, col. 2, lines 34-55.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Qin (US 2024/0184749) teaches providing an alert of notification indicating that a triggered action is about to occur; a button can be provided that, if selected, can cancel or prevent the action e.g., see Qin [0154].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC YOON whose telephone number is (408)918-7581. The examiner can normally be reached on 9 am to 5 pm ET Monday through Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Baderman, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-3644. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/ERIC J YOON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights