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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 13 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: “absent form” should be “absent from”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory 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 conflicting claims 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 11 and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,244,906. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 11 and 15 capture a broader version of the patentable subject matter already claimed by claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,244,906.
Claims 2-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2-10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,244,906. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 2-10 capture a broader version of the patentable subject matter already claimed by claims 2-10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,244,906.
Claims 12-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 12-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,244,906. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 12-14 capture a broader version of the patentable subject matter already claimed by claims 12-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,244,906.
Claims 16-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 16-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,244,906. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 16-20 capture a broader version of the patentable subject matter already claimed by claims 16-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,244,906.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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, 2, 6, 10, 11, 15, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warren et al. (Pub No US 2017/0324577) in view of Bruhn et al. (Pub No US 2017/0191693). Hereinafter, referenced as Warren and Bruhn, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Warren discloses a system, comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory coupled to the at least one processor, the memory having computer- executable instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the at least one processor (Figure 1), cause the system to:
determine, based on data representing one or more vacation time periods for a geographic location (Paragraph [0006]; likelihood of an occupied premise may be calculated based on previous travel patterns, e.g. route, direction of travel, distance from premises, etc.), that a user is predicted to be on vacation within a period of time (Paragraph [0047]; determine a likelihood that the premises will be unoccupied for a predetermined time, e.g. vacation, in order to activate the smart vacation module 215);
and based on the determination that the user is predicted to be on vacation within the period of time, cause one or more signals activating a television during the period of time (Paragraphs [0028] figure 1; the smart vacation module 215 may turn on and off the television on the user premise).
However, it is noted that Warren is silent to explicitly disclose cause a set-top box to transmit one or more signals activating a television.
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Bruhn discloses cause a set-top box to transmit one or more signals activating a television (Paragraphs [0050] [0174] figure 1; television receiver, which may include a set top box, may automatically turn on the television display at the day and time that the user watches that television program, and even tune the STB to the station that the television show is on).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Warren by specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Bruhn, for the predictable result of implementing a home automation system that fits the user’s habits and profile (Bruhn – paragraph [0174]).
Regarding claim 2, Warren and Bruhn disclose the system of claim 1, however, it is noted that Warren is silent to explicitly disclose that to cause the set-top box to transmit one or more signals activating the television, the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the system to: select one or more media channels based on television viewing history of the user; and transmit one or more signals to the television to cause the television to display the selected one or more media channels.
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Bruhn discloses to cause the set-top box to transmit one or more signals activating the television, the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the system to: select one or more media channels based on television viewing history of the user; and transmit one or more signals to the television to cause the television to display the selected one or more media channels (Paragraphs [0050] [0174] figure 1; television receiver, which may include a set top box, may automatically turn on the television display at the day and time that the user watches that television program, and even tune the STB to the station that the television show is on).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Warren by specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Bruhn, for the predictable result of implementing a home automation system that fits the user’s habits and profile (Bruhn – paragraph [0174]).
Regarding claim 6, Warren and Bruhn disclose the system of claim 1; moreover, Warren discloses that, to receive additional data representing one or more vacation time periods, the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the system to: for each respective user of one or more other users associated with the geographic location, access data representing one or more time periods during which the respective user will be on vacation (Paragraph [0055]; modify the likelihood of a type of absence based at least in part on determining the occupants are traveling together such as on vacation, business, etc.).
Regarding claim 10, Warren and Bruhn disclose the system of claim 1; moreover, Warren discloses that, the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the system to: in response to a determination that the user is predicted to be on vacation within the period of time: provide an inquiry to the user requesting confirmation that the user will be on vacation within the period of time (Paragraphs [0005] [0027]; sending a confirmation request based at least in part on the identifying for the occupant associated with the premises to confirm the absence).
Regarding claim 11, Warren and Bruhn disclose all the limitations of claim 11; therefore, claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons stated in claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, Warren and Bruhn disclose all the limitations of claim 15; therefore, claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons stated in claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, Warren and Bruhn disclose all the limitations of claim 16; therefore, claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons stated in claim 2.
Regarding claim 18, Warren and Bruhn disclose the system of claim 1; moreover, Warren discloses receiving the vacation time data by: for each respective user of one or more other users, accessing data representing one or more time periods during which the respective user will be absent form a residence associated with the respective user (Paragraph [0055]; modify the likelihood of a type of absence based at least in part on determining the occupants are traveling together such as on vacation, business, etc. Sending a confirmation request based at least in part on the identifying for the occupant associated with the premises to confirm the absence; paragraphs [0005] [0027]).
Claims 3-4, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warren and Bruhn further in view of Eberhardt et al. (Patent No US 12,069,144). Hereinafter, referenced as Eberhardt.
Regarding claim 3, Warren and Bruhn disclose the system of claim 1; moreover, Warren discloses that the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the system to: train to predict whether the user will be on vacation during a period of time based on historical vacation data associated with the geographic location (Paragraphs [0056] [0061]; determination module 320 may learn characteristics of the user, such as places the occupant regularly visits, times the occupant visits and/or returns from such places, frequency, etc.).
However, it is noted that Warren and Bruhn are silent to explicitly disclose training a machine learning model.
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Eberhardt discloses training a machine learning model (Col. 4 lines 1-16, col. 51 lines 43-51; learning personalized device routines, e.g. turning on a television, based on learned behavior implementing machine learning models, e.g. neural networks).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Warren and Bruhn by specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Eberhardt, for the predictable result of providing hyper personalized experiences, optimizing efficiency and providing higher engagement that takes into account user routines.
Regarding claim 4, Warren and Bruhn disclose the system of claim 1; moreover, Warren discloses that, to determine that the user is predicted to be on vacation within the period of time, the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the system to: apply the period of time to obtain a prediction of whether the user will be on vacation within the period of time (Paragraphs [0056] [0061]; determination module 320 may learn characteristics of the user, such as places the occupant regularly visits, times the occupant visits and/or returns from such places, frequency, etc.).
However, it is noted that Warren and Bruhn are silent to explicitly disclose a machine learning model.
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Eberhardt discloses a machine learning model (Col. 4 lines 1-16, col. 51 lines 43-51; learning personalized device routines, e.g. turning on a television, based on learned behavior implementing machine learning models, e.g. neural networks).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Warren and Bruhn by specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Eberhardt, for the predictable result of providing hyper personalized experiences, optimizing efficiency and providing higher engagement that takes into account user routines.
Regarding claim 19, Warren, Bruhn and Eberhardt disclose all the limitations of claim 19; therefore, claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons stated in claim 4.
Regarding claim 20, Warren, Bruhn and Eberhardt disclose all the limitations of claim 20; therefore, claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons stated in claim 3.
Claims 5 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warren and Bruhn further in view of Kennedy et al. (Pub No US 2017/0061779). Hereinafter, referenced as Kennedy.
Regarding claim 5, Warren and Bruhn disclose the system of claim 1; moreover, Warren discloses that, to receive additional data representing one or more vacation time periods, the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the system to: for each entity of one or more entities associated with the geographic location, access data (Paragraph [0056]; learn characteristics of places the user visits frequently, e.g. school, to predict behavior).
However, it is noted that Warren and Bruhn are silent to explicitly disclose that for each entity of one or more entities associated with the geographic location, access data representing one or more time periods during which the entity will be closed.
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Kennedy discloses that for each entity of one or more entities associated with the geographic location, access data representing one or more time periods during which the entity will be closed (Paragraph [0022]; learn patterns of the user, wherein the system may determine seasonal schedules based on patterns, e.g. out of school months).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Warren and Bruhn by specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Kennedy, for the predictable result of taking into account and learning from well-known patterns of activity of the user, including times when they are out of school, in church, etc.
Regarding claim 17, Warren, Bruhn and Kennedy disclose all the limitations of claim 17; therefore, claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons stated in claim 5.
Claims 7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warren and Bruhn further in view of Marino et al. (Pub No US 2019/0379887). Hereinafter, referenced as Marino.
Regarding claim 7, Warren and Bruhn disclose the system of claim 1; moreover, Warren discloses a test signal received by the television (Paragraphs [0028] figure 1; the smart vacation module 215 may turn on and off the television on the user premise. The disclosure of the original specification in the instant application defines that a test signal may be a power on command).
However, it is noted that Warren and Bruhn are silent to explicitly disclose determine whether a test signal was received.
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Kennedy discloses determine whether a test signal was received (Paragraphs [0064] [0072] figure 1; sending a test command and verifying that the command was applied correctly).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Warren and Bruhn by specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Kennedy, for the predictable result of implementing a testing environment that allows the system to determine and verify that a command worked correctly.
Regarding claim 12, Warren, Bruhn and Marino disclose all the limitations of claim 12; therefore, claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons stated in claim 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUNIOR O MENDOZA whose telephone number is (571)270-3573. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10am-6pm EST..
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, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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.
JUNIOR O. MENDOZA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2424
/JUNIOR O MENDOZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424