CTNF 19/030,263 CTNF 70387 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Authorization for Internet Communication In the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner recommends filing a written authorization for Internet communication. Doing so would permit the USPTO to communicate using Internet e-mail to schedule interviews or discuss other aspects of the application. Without a written authorization in place, the USPTO cannot respond to Internet e-mail correspondence. The preferred method of providing authorization is by filing form PTO/SB/439, available at: https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms. See MPEP § 502.03. Authorizations in an Internet e-mail do not have the same effect as filing the form in the record. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 and Specification Objection 07-30-01 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claim 8 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter that was not described in the original specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. More specifically, the claim recites updating the trigger data object with information that identifies a current delegate of the trigger in accordance with a change to the current delegate, wherein the current delegate is identified as the most effective device. The Examiner cannot find support for these limitations. Similarly, the specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the aforementioned subject matter of claims 1-20. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 3, 9-12, 14, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20120158161 (Cohn) in view of US 20080077967 (Nagoshi) further in view of US 20130279478 (DeBruin) . Regarding claims 1, 12, and 17, Cohn teaches or suggests a first electronic device comprising: a communications interface; and a processor coupled to the communications interface, the processor being configured to: receive a trigger data object created by a second electronic device, the trigger data object defining a trigger, the trigger including a triggering event and an action to be performed on an accessory device in response to detecting the triggering event, wherein the action is performable by sending a control message to the accessory device (¶ 87 rules for a SMA controller including trigger event and action to be performed in response to the trigger event ¶ 90); and executing the trigger comprises detecting the triggering event and sending the control message to the accessory in response to detecting the triggering event (¶ 95 detect trigger event and perform actions defined in rule). Cohn does not expressly disclose but Nagoshi teaches or suggests receiving an indication that the trigger data object is delegated to the first electronic device (primary subscriber home receiving device 11 delegates to secondary subscriber home receiving device 13); and re-delegate to the third electronic device (¶ 153 secondary subscriber home receiving device 13 redelegates to secondary subscriber home receiving device 12). Cohn does not expressly disclose but DeBruin teaches or suggests identify a most effective device for executing the trigger, wherein the most effective device is either the first electronic device or a third electronic device (¶ 38 detect which is better connection). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Cohn’s trigger objects, Nagoshi’s delegations, and DeBruin’s identifying in order to executing triggers at the best possible device). Regarding claims 3, 14, and 20, DeBruin teaches or suggests the most effective device is identified based at least in part on which of the first electronic device or the third electronic device has a more direct communication channel with the accessory device (¶ 38). Regarding claim 7, DeBruin teaches or suggests in accordance with the determination that the third electronic device is the most effective device, receiving a confirmation response from the third electronic device prior to completion of the re-delegation of the trigger (¶¶ 39-43). Regarding claim 9, Nagoshi teaches or suggests the first electronic device and the third electronic devices are both devices that are resident in a local environment where the accessory is located (¶ 99). Regarding claim 10, Nagoshi teaches or suggests the second electronic device is a mobile device (¶ 99). Regarding claim 11, Nagoshi teaches or suggests the third electronic device is a resident device that is stationary within an area associated with the accessory device (¶ 99) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20120158161 (Cohn) in view of US 20080077967 (Nagoshi) further in view of US 20130279478 (DeBruin) and CA 2738152 (Bonar) . Cohn does not expressly disclose but Bonar teaches or suggests identify a most effective device for executing the trigger, wherein the most effective device is either the first electronic device or a third electronic device (¶¶ 198, 202). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Cohn’s trigger objects, Nagoshi’s delegations, DeBruin’s identifying, and Bonar’s notification to track history of delegation . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 4-6, 15, 16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20120158161 (Cohn) in view of US 20080077967 (Nagoshi) further in view of US 20130279478 (DeBruin) and US 8489632 (Breckenridge) . Regarding claims 4, 15, and 18, Cohn does not expressly disclose but Breckenridge teaches or suggests determining an effectiveness score for each of the first electronic device and the third electronic device; and identifying the most effective device based at least in part on the effectiveness score (abs.). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Cohn’s trigger objects, Nagoshi’s delegations, DeBruin’s identifying, and Breckenridge’s score to quantify calculations. Regarding claims 5, 16, and 19, DeBruin teaches or suggests the effectiveness score is determined based at least in part on at least one of an ability to detect the triggering event, a reliability of a communication channel with the accessory device, a relative directness of the communication channel with the accessory device, or an ability to execute the trigger according to power or connectivity constraints (¶ 38). Regarding claim 6, Breckenridge teaches or suggests the most effective device is identified based at least in part on a highest effectiveness score (ans.) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20120158161 (Cohn) in view of US 20080077967 (Nagoshi) further in view of US 20130279478 (DeBruin) and US 20030182559 (Curry) . Cohn does not expressly disclose but Curry teaches or suggests updating the trigger data object with information that identifies a current delegate of the trigger in accordance with a change to the current delegate, wherein the current delegate is identified as the most effective device (¶ 47). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Cohn’s trigger objects, Nagoshi’s delegations, DeBruin’s identifying, and Curry’s information to track history of delegation. Other Art The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the instant disclosure. For example, US 20150339917 triggers commands on a target device in response to event notifications broadcasted from a source device (¶ 1). Conclusion Any response to this Office action containing amended or newly presented claims should specifically point out support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims. See MPEP § 714.02 and § 2163.06 (“Applicant should specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure.”). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lance Leonard Barry whose telephone number is (571) 272-5856. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 730-1630. 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 email the Examiner. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ario Etienne can be reached on 571-272-4001. 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. /LANCE LEONARD BARRY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457 Application/Control Number: 19/030,263 Page 2 Art Unit: 2457 Application/Control Number: 19/030,263 Page 3 Art Unit: 2457 Application/Control Number: 19/030,263 Page 4 Art Unit: 2457 Application/Control Number: 19/030,263 Page 5 Art Unit: 2457 Application/Control Number: 19/030,263 Page 6 Art Unit: 2457 Application/Control Number: 19/030,263 Page 7 Art Unit: 2457 Application/Control Number: 19/030,263 Page 8 Art Unit: 2457 Application/Control Number: 19/030,263 Page 9 Art Unit: 2457 Application/Control Number: 19/030,263 Page 10 Art Unit: 2457 Application/Control Number: 19/030,263 Page 11 Art Unit: 2457
Prosecution Insights