Detailed Action
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .12
The Office Action is in response to claims filed on 6/5/2026 where claims 2, 11, and 17 are canceled. Claims 3, 12, and 18 are amended. Claims 1, 3-10, 12-16, and 18-20 are pending and ready for examination.
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.
Applicant's arguments filed 6/5/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner has reviewed the Applicant’s arguments (Pages 9-14) in their entirety.
Applicant’s argument that Seok and Yus provide “no suggestion” to control application availability based upon information concerning the first, second, and third devices is not persuasive because it improperly requires an express teaching or suggestion for the proposed combination. The rejection is based on obviousness under 35 USC 103, not anticipation. Seok teaches a multi-device environment in which applications are associated with and downloaded for selected devices, and further teaches control rules establishing functional relationships among devices. Seed further teaches functional dependencies among IoT entities , including detection of dependency relationships between IoT entities by the RM service. Thus the prior art provides both the device-specific application framework and the functional relationship dependency information relied upon by the rejection. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of incorporating Seed’s known functional dependency information into Seok’s device/application control environment so that application availability and selection account for the devices and their functional relationships. Such implementation constitutes application of a known device-relationship technique within an existing multi-device control system and yields the predictable result of selecting applications appropriate to the devices and relationships being controlled.
Applicant’s position effectively require the prior art to expressly recite the claimed first-device/second-device/third-device arrangement and expressly instruct the artisan to make the combination. 35 USC 103 impose no such requirement. MPEP 2143 recognizes, inter-alia, combining known elements according to known methods, applying known techniques to known systems, and predictable variations as independent rationales supporting obviousness. Further, the Federal Circuit has explained that where one reference identifies a relevant problem or technological context and another provides a known way of addressing it, and the combination is within the ordinary skill in the art, no additional express instruction to combine is required. See Intel Corp. v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG. Accordingly, Applicant’s reliance on the absence of an express “suggestion” in Seok, Yus, or Seed does not rebut the articulated prima facie case of obviousness.
The Examiner respectfully remind Applicant that there are multiple recognized bases upon which one of ordinary skill in the art may have had reason to combine or modify prior art teachings. As indicated above, these include for example , the substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results , the application of a known technique to a known device or system ready for improvement, and the combination of familiar elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143 further recognizes that design incentives, market forces, market pressure, and other known needs or problems in the field may prompt predictable variations or implementation of known solutions. Accordingly, the motivation for the proposed combination need not originate from an express instruction within the cited references themselves.
Applicant’s separation of Seok’s downloaded application from Seok’s control rules is not persuasive. Applicant treats Seok’s disclosure of downloading an applicatin for controlling a desired device ([0025], [0027]) and Seok’s disclosure of control rules defining functional relationships among devices ([0031]) as isolated and unrelated teachings Such piecemeal analysis does not address Seok’s disclosure as a whole. Seok teaches an application base device-control environment together with control rules governing functional interactions among the controlled devices. The fact that a gateway may retain or execute control rules does not preclude the downloaded application form using, invoking, or operating in conjunction with that control functionality, and the claim does not require the application to perform every control operation without use of another system component.
Applicant’s argument that Seok only downloads an application for one “desired device” does not establish nonobviousness of the claimed multi-device relationships. Seok expressly provides a technological environment containing multiple devices and control rules defining conditional device-to-device relationships ([0025], [0031]). The former claim 2 merely specifies additional devices participating in additional functional relationships. 35 USC 103 does not require Seok to expressly label the devices “first”, “second”, and “third” or expressly illustrate the precise claimed chain. Applying the disclosed device-relationship mechanism across additional devices in the same multi-device environment represents a predictable implementation of the known control relationship.
Seed further defeats Applicant’s contention that the claimed functional interrelationships are unsupported. Seed expressly teaches IoT entities having functional dependencies on one or more other IoT entities. A functional dependencies on one or more other IoT entities. A functional dependency between IoT entities is a functional interrelationship between those entities. Seed therefore provides direct evidence that multi-entity functional relationships were known and that a given IoT entity may participate in dependency relationships with additional IoT entities. Incorporating Seed’s known dependency relationships into Seok’s existing device-control relationship environment would have predictably provided the claimed multiple functional device interrelationships.
Applicant also improperly requires Seed itself to disclose the GUI/application-selection limitations. Seed was relied upon for its functional-dependency teaching as evidence supporting the relationship aspect of the combined solution; Seed was not required independently to reproduce Seok’s application-download functionality or Yus’s marketplace/GUI functionality. The rejection must be evaluated based upon the combined teachings of Seok, Yus, and Seed, not by requiring each reference individually to disclose the entire claimed invention.
Applicant’s assertion that the combined Seok/Yus system would amount to no more than downloading an application for one desired device likewise fails to address the actual combination. Uys contributes the online application marketplace functionality , while Seok supplies device-specific application downloading and device-control relationships. Seed further supplies explicitly multi-entity functional dependency relationships. The combined solution therefore is not limited to merely downloading an application for a single isolated device; it provides application selection and control within a multi-device environment in which functional relationships among devices are known and managed.
Applicant’s repeated statement that it has “not found” an express disclosure or suggestion of the precise claimed arrangement applies an anticipation-type standard to a USC 103 rejection. Obviousness does not require an express description of the completed claimed arrangement in a single reference or an express direction instructing a person of ordinary skill in the art to assemble the references in the claimed manner. The cited art supplies the relevant technological components—device-specific applications, multiple controlled devices, device-control rules, an application marketplace, and functional dependencies among IoT entities—and the claimed arrangement results from their predictable combination by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Applicant has further presented no evidence that the proposed combination is technically incompatible, teaches away from the claimed arrangement, produces unpredictable results, or yields an unexpected result. Applicant’s assertions that the cited references do not expressly recite the precise claimed configuration do not, without more, rebut the articulated prima facie showing of obviousness. The rejection relies upon known control device-control and dependency techniques operating in compatible multi-device IoT environments and producing the predictable result of controlling and selecting applications according to functional relationships among the devices.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3-4, 9-10, 12-13, 16 and 18are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Seok (KR101481536) in view of Yus, “The SemIo Tic Ecosystem: A Smart Bridge Between IoT Devices and Smart Spaces”, July 2022 and in further view of Seed (US 2021/0306831)
Regarding claim 1, Seok discloses a method for provisioning a group of devices with control-group data defining one or more functional interrelationships between the devices of the group, the method comprising:
providing by a computing system a graphical user interface (GUI) defining an online application marketplace, wherein the GUI specifies a plurality of applications available for download, each of the applications including a different respective set of control-group data that defines a different respective set of one or more functional device interrelationships, and wherein the providing of the GUI includes controlling, based on information about the devices of the group, which plurality of applications the GUI specifies as available for download (Seok; Seok teaches a smartphone interface (GUI) through which a user searches for and selects a particular device from a device list, where the user’s selection initiates downloading an application corresponding to the selected device. Under BRI, Seok’s S-platform is equivalent ot an online marketplace because it provides multiple applications available for download (i.e., an application is available for a desired device), and the smartphone GUI allows the user to browse (search/select) among available choices (via the device list) to obtain (download) a selected application.
[0025] S-platform 130 has an application necessary to control devices 11-15 and 21-25. The smartphone 500 may download an application of a desired device by accessing the S-platform 130 through the Internet
[0027] The smartphone 500 may download an application of a desired device by accessing the S-platform 130 through the Internet.
[0028] As a result, the smartphone 500 searches for and selects a desired device from the device list provided through the P-platform 110, and transmits information of the selected device to the S-platform 130 to control the device
[0030] That is, the smartphone 500 accesses the gateway 300 through the AP 400, searches for / selects a desired device, downloads and executes an application for controlling the desired device, and transmits a control command to the device
Seok further teaches that the application implements control-rule information defining functional device interrelationships;
[0001] The present invention relates to control-rule setting, and more particularly, to a control-rule setting method for device dynamic connection and a control system employing the same.
[0006] A second selection step of receiving a selection of a second device; And
setting a condition of the first device to operate the second device as a control rule.
[0031] “... a control rule to automatically control the devices 11 to 15 and 21 to 25 according to the retained control rule. A control-rule is a set of conditional statements that, when a device becomes a certain condition, causes the other device to operate in a certain state”)
receiving into the computing system user input selecting a given one of the specified applications, the selected application defining a given set of control-group data that defines a given set of one or more functional device interrelationships (Seok; As detailed above the user can provide user input to select one the specified applications that defines control group data. The control group data realizes the interrelationships ;
[0025] S-platform 130 has an application necessary to control devices 11-15 and 21-25. The smartphone 500 may download an application of a desired device by accessing the S-platform 130 through the Internet
[0028] As a result, the smartphone 500 searches for and selects a desired device from the device list provided through the P-platform 110, and transmits information of the selected device to the S-platform 130 to control the device
[0032] For example, when the illuminance measured by the illuminance sensor 11 is less than 50 lx, the illumination 21 is turned on or the temperature sensor 12 is measured. If the 'temperature exceeds 28 ° C', conditional statements such as 'turning on' the 'air conditioner 22' may be included in the control-rule.)
responsive to the user input, (i) downloading by the computing system the selected application and (ii) provisioning by the computing system the devices of the group with the given set of control-group data of the downloaded application, wherein the provisioning establishes the given set of one or more functional device interrelationships between the devices of the group (Seok; Seok teaches downloading an application from the S-platform to control devices ([0025]). The application includes control rules which specify conditional relationships ([0031]). Thus the downloaded application provides control group data establishing functional device interrelationships between devices;
[0025] S-platform 130 has an application necessary to control devices 11-15 and 21-25. The smartphone 500 may download an application of a desired device by accessing the S-platform 130 through the Internet
Example of Functional Device Interrelationships
[0032] For example, when the illuminance measured by the illuminance sensor 11 is less than 50 lx, the illumination 21 is turned on or the temperature sensor 12 is measured. If the 'temperature exceeds 28 ° C', conditional statements such as 'turning on' the 'air conditioner 22' may be included in the control-rule.
[0031] “... a control rule to automatically control the devices 11 to 15 and 21 to 25 according to the retained control rule. A control-rule is a set of conditional statements that, when a device becomes a certain condition, causes the other device to operate in a certain state)
wherein the group of devices includes a first device, a second device, and a third device, wherein the given set of one or more functional device interrelationships established between the devices of the group includes (i) a first functional interrelationship between the first device and the second device and (ii) a second functional interrelationship between the second device and the third device (Seok’s technological environment provides multiple devices controller through application control rules ([0025, [0031]). Th control rules define conditional relationships between devices such that one device state causes another device to operate in a particular state. Accordingly an device in the group may function as a controlling device within the defined functional relationship)
As evidence of the rationale above Yus teaches:
application online marketplace (Yus; Yus teaches a market place comprising content (i.e. applications and/or software components) which is accessible via a web application (i.e. GUI)
see e.g. Abstract, Page 76:1 “... The ecosystem is based on a centralized repository, where developers can advertise their space-agnostic applications ...”
see e.g. Section 3.1 SemIo Tic Marketplace: Discovering Content:
“The marketplace serves as the repository from which smart space administrators can retrieve content for their spaces, The marketplace is a web application ... shows the content along with ratings, comments, screenshots, and other information to help administrators to browse and select appropriate content ...
We consider SemIoTic content to be the following:
Sensor Wrappers, which are software components (encoded in any programming language of choice ...
Virtual Sensors, which are software components ...
IoT Application, which offer functionalities related to the smart space to its inhabitants”)
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Yu’s online application marketplace. The motivation being the combined solution provides for implementing a known technique resulting in increased user experience.
As evidence of the rationale above Seed discloses:
functional interrelationship (Seed;
see e.g. [0102] Dependency Relationship Criteria may define IoT entities that have a functional dependency on one or more other IoT entities. For example, this criteria may refer to an industry standard and/or a product profile associated with that standard that may be used by the RM Service to determine if IoT entities are dependent on one another (e.g., Bluetooth smart light bulbs are dependent on Bluetooth smart light switches). In another example, RM Trigger Criteria may define SL conditions such as the occurrence of the same IoT entity sending SL request messages to another IoT entity on a repeated basis. In this case, the RM Service may detect a dependency relationship between the IoT entities. By detecting that two IoT entities have a dependency, the service layer may generate warnings to the service layer owner, or operator, if particular devices are brought offline. For example, a service layer may inform a gateway owner that a door lock may soon loose functionality because of low battery and that this will impact the performance of the home security system.)
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Seeds/s dependency relationships. The motivation being the combined solution provides for implementing a known technique resulting in increased efficiencies of chaining IoT devices for services and/or tasks.
Regarding claim 3, Seok in view of Yus and in further view of Seed disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the second functional interrelationship comprises the second device controlling an operational state of the third device(Seok further teaches ( [0031]). Th control rules cause one device to operate in a particular state based on the condition of another device. Thus Seok teaches a device controlling the operational state of another device as recited
See e.g. Seok [0031] “... a control rule to automatically control the devices 11 to 15 and 21 to 25 according to the retained control rule. A control-rule is a set of conditional statements that, when a device becomes a certain condition, causes the other device to operate in a certain state”).
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Yu’s online application marketplace. The motivation being the combined solution provides for implementing a known technique resulting in increased user experience.
Regarding claim 4, Seok in view of Yus and in further view of Seed disclose the method of claim 3, wherein the given set of control-group data of the downloaded application includes control logic executable by the second device to control the operational state of the third device (Seok; Seok teaches control rules that cause one device to operate in a particular sate based on the condition of another device ([0031]) implementing such control rules necessarily requires executable control logic by the controlling device to change the operational state of the other device. Thus, Seok teaches control logic executable by one device to control the operational state of another device as recited).
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Yu’s online application marketplace. The motivation being the combined solution provides for implementing a known technique resulting in increased user experience.
Regarding claim 9, Seok in view of Yus and in further view of Seed disclose The method of claim 1, wherein provisioning the devices of the group with the given set of control-group data of the downloaded application comprises provisioning each device of the group with the given set of control-group data of the downloaded application (Seok teaches ([0031]) devices that are associated with an application defining control rules governing operation within a group. Because the control rules define the functional interrelationships among the devices, the devices necessarily must be provisioned with the control group data in order to operate in accordance with the application)
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Yu’s online application marketplace. The motivation being the combined solution provides for implementing a known technique resulting in increased user experience.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 comprises the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 1 and is rejected based on the same rationale.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 comprises the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 3 and is rejected based on the same rationale.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 comprises the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 4 and is rejected based on the same rationale.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 comprises the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 1 and is rejected based on the same rationale.
Regarding claim 18, Seok in view of Yus and in further view of Seed disclose the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 16, wherein the second functional interrelationship comprises the second device controlling an operational state of the third device, and wherein the given set of control-group data of the downloaded application includes control logic executable by the second device to control the operational state of the third device (Seok’s download application provides the control rule functionality ([0031]), where a condition of one device causes another device to operate in a corresponding state. Thus, the downloaded application includes control logic executed by the controlling device to evaluate the condition and change the operational state of the other device. In this way, the downloaded application implements device-to-device control through executable control logic).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Seok in view of Yus and in further view of Seed and in further view of Guedalia (US 2014/0244834)
Regarding claim 5, Seok in view of Yus and in further view of Seed disclose the method of claim 3, Yus does not expressly disclose wherein the operational state of the third device comprises an on/off state of the third device.
However in analogous art Guedalia discloses:
wherein the operational state of the third device comprises an on/off state of the third device (Guedalia;
see e.g. [0086] “... state information .. on or off ...”)
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Guedalia’s state information scheme. The motivation being the combined solution provides for increased efficiencies in IoT device workflow assignment and provisionoing.
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Yu’s online application marketplace. The motivation being the combined solution provides for implementing a known technique resulting in increased user experience.
Claims 6, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Seok in view of Yus and in further view of Seed and in further view of Ravichandran (US 2020/0389775)
Regarding claim 6, Seok in view of Yus and in further view of Seed disclose the method of claim 1, Seok does not expressly disclose wherein the computing system comprises an over the top (OTT) device, wherein providing the GUI comprises the OTT device providing the GUI on an associated display, and wherein receiving the user input comprises the OTT device receiving the user input.
However in analogous art Ravichandran discloses:
wherein the computing system comprises an over the top (OTT) device, wherein providing the GUI comprises the OTT device providing the GUI on an associated display, and wherein receiving the user input comprises the OTT device receiving the user input input (Ravindra; Ravindra teaches an IoT devices comprising OTT functionality and where the OTT comprises a GUI readily able to receive input;
see e.g. Claim 15 “... a plurality of selections in the OTT settings GUI elating one or more functions associated with a native application on the first UE, an OTT application on the first UE, or both the native application and the OTT application ...”
see e.g [0042] “ ... an application downloaded from an “app store” ...”
see .eg. [0118] “ ... output devices can include a screen, or display, on which the GUI can be displayed ... or a peripheral display ...” ).
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Seok with Ravichandran’s OTT scheme. The motivation being the combined solution provides for enhanced services (see e.g. Ravichandran Fig. 10)
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 comprises the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 6 and therefore is rejected based on the same rationale;
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 comprises the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 6 and therefore is rejected based on the same rationale;
Claims 7, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Seok in view of Yus and in further view of Seed and in further view of Ravichandran and in further view of Isbilirog (US 2018/0279001)
Regarding claim 7, Seok in view of Yus and in futher view of Seedand in further view of Ravichandran disclose the method of claim 6, the menu further allowing user selection of an application from among the plurality of applications (The combined solution per Independent claim 1), Seok does not expressly disclose wherein the GUI includes a menu that allows user selection of streaming media channels
However in analogous art Isbilirog discloses:
wherein the GUI includes a menu that allows user selection of streaming media channels (Isbilirog;
see e.g. [0055] “... content access device ... selection of a video program from a menu or website, a selection of a particular media content channel ... received via the user interface ...”)
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Seok with Isbilirog’s conventional media selection scheme. The motivation being the combined solution increases efficiencies of utilizing OTT devices.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 comprises the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 7 and therefore is rejected based on the same rationale;
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 comprises the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 7 and therefore is rejected based on the same rationale;
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Seok in view of Yus and in further view of Seed and in further view of Kreft (US 9,772,617)
Regarding claim 8, Seok in view of Yus and in further view of Seed disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the selected application defines device placeholders (Per Independent claim 1 there is a direct relationship/connection between the device and applications (i.e. placeholder)), Seok does not expressly disclose:
the method further comprising substituting the device placeholders for actual identifiers of the devices of the group.
However in analogous art Kreft discloses:
the method further comprising substituting the device placeholders for actual identifiers of the devices of the group (Kreft;
see e .g. Claim 6 “ ... substitute the device tag placeholder with a field device identification ...”)
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Seok with Kreft’s substitution. The motivation being the combined solution provides for implementing a known technique resulting in increased efficiencies in provisioning devices.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 TODD L. BARKER whose telephone number is (571) 270 0257. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday, 7:30am to 5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor Vivek Srivastava can be reached on (571) 272 7304
/TODD L BARKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2449
Prosecution Insights