DETAILED ACTION
In response to communications filed 9 December 2024, this is the first Office action on the merits. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1, 10, and 20 recite
performing, one or more actions including determining essentiality of the one or more input events, classifying the one or more input events, and determining expected response for the one or more input events;
determining, current availability of a receiver for the one or more input events; and
predicting, response of the receiver to the one or more input events, based on current availability of the receiver with respect to the expected response.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas. The steps of “performing . . . determining . . . classifying . . . determining,” “determining,” and “predicting” can be performed as mental observations and/or evaluations, perhaps using pen and paper. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Claim 19 recites
in case that response of the receiver is predicted as unsatisfactory, determine the alternate receiver from among one or more alternate receivers.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas. The steps to “determine” can be performed as mental observations and/or evaluations, perhaps using pen and paper. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 further recites that the steps are performed by an “electronic device.” Claim 10 further recites
An electronic device for providing an alternate receiver to perform one or more input events in an Internet of Things (IOT) environment, the electronic device comprising: memory storing one or more computer programs; and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the memory, wherein the one or more computer programs include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to [perform the steps analyzed above].
Claim 19 further recites
An Internet of Things (IOT) hub for providing an alternate receiver to perform one or more input events in an IOT environment, the IOT hub comprising: memory storing one or more computer programs; and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the memory, wherein the one or more computer programs include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the IOT hub to [perform the steps analyzed above].
Claim 20 further recites
One or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing one or more computer programs including computer-executable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of an electronic device individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to perform operations, the operations comprising [the steps analyzed above].
However, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, because they amount to merely implementing the judicial exception on a generic computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Claim 19 further recites to
receive, from an electronic device, information associated with: essentiality of the one or more input events, classification of the one or more input events, expected response for the one or more input events, current availability of a receiver for the one or more input events, and response of the receiver to the one or more input events; and
provide encrypted text and one or more essential information analyzed from one or more input event assessed parameters to the alternate receiver, based on access rights of the alternate receiver.
However, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, because they amount to an insignificant extra-solution activity, such as mere data gathering (“receive”) and/or outputting (“provide”). See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Claims 6 and 15 further recite
encrypted text and one or more essential information analyzed from one or more input event assessed parameters is provided to the alternate receiver, based on access rights of the alternate receiver.
However, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, because they amount to an insignificant extra-solution activity, such as mere data outputting (“provided”). See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
The additional limitations of claims 2-9 and 11-18, not explicitly addressed above, likewise fall within the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas. Considering the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the elements individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than implementing the judicial exception on a generic computer and/or insignificant extra-solution activities. Paragraphs [0005]-[0008] of the specification provide evidence that the step to “receive” was a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of existing “numerous prior arts that disclose about forwarding the input event in an IOT environment.” In addition, the step to “provide . . . based on access rights” is understood as a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as stated in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). Therefore claims 1-20 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-18 and 20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 10, and 20 recite
performing, one or more actions including determining essentiality of the one or more input events, classifying the one or more input events, and determining expected response for the one or more input events.
Although only “one” of these actions is required to be performed, the claims further limit the “actions.” For example, in claims 1, 10, and 19, “predicting . . . based on current availability of the receiver with respect to the expected response” requires the action of “determining expected response” to have been performed, although it is previously recited as being optional. This ambiguity renders the claim indefinite. Claims 2-9 and 11-18 are likewise rejected because the inherit this deficiency. For the purpose of applying prior art, the limitations as issue are interpreted as
performing,
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 1-6, 9-15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al. (US 10,482,756 B2) in view of Hong et al. (US 2020/0099545 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kumar teaches a method performed by an electronic device for providing an alternate receiver to perform one or more input events in an internet of things (IOT) environment (see Kumar 7:9-62),
the method comprising:
performing, one or more actions including determining essentiality of the one or more input events (see Kumar 12:11-44, “notification . . .status indication . . . emergency”), and
determining expected response for the one or more input events (see Kumar 21:19-45, “alert may be associated with a user programmable function . . . system state . . . program event . . . or other triggers”);
determining, current availability of a receiver for the one or more input events (see Kumar 21:46-62, “current user location and a current user activity”); and
predicting, response of the receiver to the one or more input events, based on current availability of the receiver with respect to the expected response (see Kumar 21:63-22:33, “generates a notification message including the attributes and preferences” predicts that the receiver will respond to the generated notification).
Kumar does not explicitly teach classifying the one or more input events.
However, Hong teaches classifying the one or more input events (see Hong [0266]-[0277], “sub-classification”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to classify the input events, as taught by Hong, in combination with the techniques taught by Kumar, because “If an electronic device associated with the user account of a user is not present in the space” a “target electronic device” is selected and “it may provide the target electronic device with only minimum notification (or information related to notification) or provide a script related to personal information (or privacy) protection” (see Hong [0305]).
Regarding claim 10, Kumar teaches an electronic device for providing an alternate receiver to perform one or more input events in an Internet of Things (IOT) environment, the electronic device comprising:
memory storing one or more computer programs; and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the memory, wherein the one or more computer programs include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively (see Kumar 7:9-62),
cause the electronic device to:
perform one or more actions including determining essentiality of the one or more input events (see Kumar 12:11-44, “notification . . .status indication . . . emergency”), and
determining expected response for the one or more input events (see Kumar 21:19-45, “alert may be associated with a user programmable function . . . system state . . . program event . . . or other triggers”),
determine current availability of a receiver for the one or more input events(see Kumar 21:46-62, “current user location and a current user activity”), and
predict response of the receiver to the one or more input events, based on current availability of the receiver with respect to the expected response (see Kumar 21:63-22:33, “generates a notification message including the attributes and preferences” predicts that the receiver will respond to the generated notification).
Kumar does not explicitly teach classifying the one or more input events.
However, Hong teaches classifying the one or more input events (see Hong [0266]-[0277], “sub-classification”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to classify the input events, as taught by Hong, in combination with the techniques taught by Kumar, because “If an electronic device associated with the user account of a user is not present in the space” a “target electronic device” is selected and “it may provide the target electronic device with only minimum notification (or information related to notification) or provide a script related to personal information (or privacy) protection” (see Hong [0305]).
Regarding claim 19, Kumar teaches an Internet of Things (IOT) hub for providing an alternate receiver to perform one or more input events in an IOT environment, the IOT hub comprising:
memory storing one or more computer programs; and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the memory, wherein the one or more computer programs include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively (see Kumar 7:9-62),
cause the IOT hub to:
receive, from an electronic device, information associated with (see Kumar 21:19-45, “receiving an alert from an electron device”):
essentiality of the one or more input events (see Kumar 12:11-44, “notification . . .status indication . . . emergency”);
expected response for the one or more input events (see Kumar 21:19-45, “alert may be associated with a user programmable function . . . system state . . . program event . . . or other triggers”),
current availability of a receiver for the one or more input events (see Kumar 21:46-62, “current user location and a current user activity”), and
response of the receiver to the one or more input events (see Kumar 21:63-22:15, “notification preference” and/or “notification characteristics”); and
in case that response of the receiver is predicted as unsatisfactory, determine the alternate receiver from among one or more alternate receivers (see Kumar 12:11-44, “Other users may also be notified based on a priority list . . . direct the notification to an appropriate user”).
Kumar does not explicitly teach
information associated with a classification of the one or more input events; and
provide encrypted text and one or more essential information analyzed from one or more input event assessed parameters, based on access rights.
However, Hong teaches
information associated with a classification of the one or more input events (see Hong [0266]-[0277], “sub-classification”); and
provide encrypted text and one or more essential information analyzed from one or more input event assessed parameters, based on access rights (see Hong Table 4 and [0289], the “given notification” provides encrypted text by protecting personal information and essential information “OO! You have a call” based on “user account is recognized” access rights).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine information associated with a classification and provide encrypted text and one or more essential information, as taught by Hong, in combination with the techniques taught by Kumar, because “If an electronic device associated with the user account of a user is not present in the space” a “target electronic device” is selected and “it may provide the target electronic device with only minimum notification (or information related to notification) or provide a script related to personal information (or privacy) protection” (see Hong [0305]).
Kumar as modified teaches wherein the encrypted text and one or more essential information are provided to the alternate receiver and wherein the access rights are of the alternate receiver (see Kumar 12:11-44 and Hong [0289] and [0305], where the encrypted text, essential information, and access rights of the “selected peripheral electronic device,” taught by Hong, are for a device of the “appropriate user” taught by Kumar).
Regarding claim 20, Kumar teaches one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing one or more computer programs including computer-executable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of an electronic device individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to perform operations (see Kumar 7:9-62),
the operations comprising:
performing, one or more actions including determining essentiality of one or more input events (see Kumar 12:11-44, “notification . . .status indication . . . emergency”), and
determining expected response for the one or more input events (see Kumar 21:19-45, “alert may be associated with a user programmable function . . . system state . . . program event . . . or other triggers”);
determining, current availability of a receiver for the one or more input events (see Kumar 21:46-62, “current user location and a current user activity”); and
predicting, response of the receiver to the one or more input events, based on current availability of the receiver with respect to the expected response (see Kumar 21:63-22:33, “generates a notification message including the attributes and preferences” predicts that the receiver will respond to the generated notification).
Kumar does not explicitly teach classifying the one or more input events.
However, Hong teaches classifying the one or more input events (see Hong [0266]-[0277], “sub-classification”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to classify the input events, as taught by Hong, in combination with the techniques taught by Kumar, because “If an electronic device associated with the user account of a user is not present in the space” a “target electronic device” is selected and “it may provide the target electronic device with only minimum notification (or information related to notification) or provide a script related to personal information (or privacy) protection” (see Hong [0305]).
Regarding claims 2 and 11, Kumar as modified teaches further comprising: determining the essentiality of the one or more input events based on one or more input event assessed parameters (see Kumar 12:11-44, “type of notification . . . status information”).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Kumar as modified teaches further comprising: classifying the one or more input events based on the one or more input event assessed parameters and metadata of the one or more input events received from a service expected database (see Kumar 12:11-44, “type of notification . . . status information,” and Hong [0267], “emergency notification,” where Kumar teaches a “priority list” and “historical use and notification data,” i.e., metadata received from a service expected database).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Kumar as modified teaches further comprising: determining the expected response based on at least one of: the one or more input event assessed parameters, the metadata received from the service expected database, or type of the one or more input events (see Kumar 12:11-44 and 21:19-45 and Hong [0267]).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Kumar as modified teaches further comprising: determining the current availability of the receiver for the one or more input events based on at least one of: digital occupancy, physical occupancy, or device readiness (see Kumar 21:46-62, “activities,” “calendar events,” and/or “device status information”).
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Kumar as modified teaches wherein, in case that the response of the receiver is predicted as unsatisfactory: the alternate receiver is determined from among one or more alternate receivers (see Kumar 12:11-44, “Other users may also be notified based on a priority list . . . direct the notification to an appropriate user”).
Kumar does not explicitly teach encrypted text and one or more essential information analyzed from one or more input event assessed parameters is provided, based on access rights.
However, Hong further teaches encrypted text and one or more essential information analyzed from one or more input event assessed parameters is provided, based on access rights (see Hong Table 4 and [0289], the “given notification” provides encrypted text by protecting personal information and essential information “OO! You have a call” based on “user account is recognized” access rights).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide encrypted text and one or more essential information, as taught by Hong, in combination with the techniques taught by Kumar, because “If an electronic device associated with the user account of a user is not present in the space” a “target electronic device” is selected and “it may provide the target electronic device with only minimum notification (or information related to notification) or provide a script related to personal information (or privacy) protection” (see Hong [0305]).
Kumar as modified teaches wherein the encrypted text and one or more essential information are provided to the alternate receiver and wherein the access rights are of the alternate receiver (see Kumar 12:11-44 and Hong [0289] and [0305], where the encrypted text, essential information, and access rights of the “selected peripheral electronic device,” taught by Hong, are for a device of the “appropriate user” taught by Kumar).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Kumar as modified teaches wherein the encrypted text and the one or more essential information are provided to the alternate receiver based on capability of most suitable Internet of Things (IOT) device (see Hong [0285], the encrypted text and essential information are provided based on “if there is a peripheral electronic device capable of voice recording”).
Claims 7-8 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al. (US 10,482,756 B2) in view of Hong et al. (US 2020/0099545 A1) as applied to claims 1, 6, 10, and 15 above, and further in view of Silverstein et al. (US 2022/0309901 A1).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Kumar as modified teaches wherein the alternate receiver is determined based on prediction score (see Kumar 23:49-24:3, “determining an alert relevancy”).
Kumar as modified does not explicitly teach wherein the prediction score is calculated based on a defined percentage of affinity score, a defined percentage of interaction score, and a defined percentage of persona score.
However, Silverstein teaches wherein the prediction score is calculated based on a defined percentage of affinity score, a defined percentage of interaction score, and a defined percentage of persona score (see Silverstein [0048], “assigns a score . . . based on . . . factors . . . content of notification . . . proposed action . . . users name . . . some factors weigh heavier than others”; the recited defined percentage of affinity score, interaction score, and persona score do not functionally limit the claim and accordingly do not patentably distinguish the invention).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to calculate the prediction score based on a defined percentage of a number of factors, as taught by Silverstein, in combination with the techniques taught by Kumar as modified, because “different factors contribute differently to the urgency score. Meaning, some factors weigh heavier than others. In an embodiment, the weight of a factor is predetermined or is a user preference” (see Silverstein [0048]).
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Kumar as modified teaches wherein the encrypted text provided to the alternate receiver is determined based on the classification of the one or more input events (see Kumar 12:11-44 and Hong [0289] and [0305], where the “appropriate user,” taught by Kumar, is further determined based on the “sub-classification” taught by Hong),
wherein the one or more essential information is analyzed from the one or more input event assessed parameters based on the expected response for performing the one or more input events (see Kumar 12:11-44, “type of notification . . . status information”), and
wherein the access rights of the alternate receiver are determined based on the prediction score (see Kumar 23:49-24:3 and Hong Table 4 and [0289], where whether the “user account is recognized” access rights, as taught by Hong, are determined based on the “appropriate user” determined based on the “alert relevancy” and/or “priority” score of the taught by Kumar).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kristopher Andersen whose telephone number is (571)270-5743. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM-5:00 PM ET, Monday-Friday.
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, Ann Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9767. 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.
/Kristopher Andersen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159
/ANN J LO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2159