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 .
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 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception, an abstract idea, as it has not been integrated into a practical application and the claims do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. The examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1:
Claims 9-16 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium and fall within the statutory category of manufacture. Therefore, “Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?” Yes.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry “Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea?” we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claim 9: The limitation “cause the processor to perform one or more operations comprising: connecting, by a first device, to a first network associated with a first device type, and to a second network associated with the first device type and at least a second device type different from the first device type; generating a command to change a state of a network device; encoding, by the first device, at least a portion of the command to prevent identification of the first device over the second network; and providing, by the first device via the first network, the command”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think and observe, judge and evaluate a network device and mentally generate, with or without the use of pen and paper, a command to change a state of the network device. For example, a person can think and observe, judge and evaluate a command and mentally encode, with or without the use of pen and paper, the command to prevent identification of the first device over the second network.
Therefore, yes, claim 9 recites judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2:
Claim 9: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the following additional elements –“computer-readable instructions”, “a processor”, and “a first device”, which are merely recitations of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Therefore, “Do the claims recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?” No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
After evaluating the inquiries set forth in Steps 2A Prongs 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claim 9 not only recites a judicial exception but that the claim is directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Claim 9: The claim does not recite additional elements, alone or in combination, 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 generic computing components and mere instructions to apply an exception which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?” No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, claim 9 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
With regard to claim 10, the limitation “encoding the command to prevent the identification of the first device by a third network communicatively coupled with the second network”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think and observe, judge and evaluate the command and mentally encode, with or without the use of pen and paper, the command to prevent the identification of the first device by a third network communicatively coupled with the second network. Claim 10 further recites additional element of “wherein the third network is associated with the second device type”, which is merely a recitation of field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Further, claim 10 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into a practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 10 fails both Step 2A Prong 2 for being directed to a judicial exception that has not been integrated into a practical application and Step 2B for not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 10 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
With regard to claim 11, it recites additional elements of “the first network is configured to communicatively couple devices having the first device type, andthe second network is configured to communicatively couple devices having the first device type or second device type”, which is merely a recitation of field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Further, claim 11 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into a practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 11 fails both Step 2A Prong 2 for being directed to a judicial exception that has not been integrated into a practical application and Step 2B for not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 11 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
With regard to claim 12, it recites additional elements of “the first device type is configured to communicate over the first or second network, and the second device type is configured to communicate over the second network but not the first network”, which is merely a recitation of field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Further, claim 12 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into a practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 12 fails both Step 2A Prong 2 for being directed to a judicial exception that has not been integrated into a practical application and Step 2B for not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 12 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
With regard to claim 13, it recites additional elements of “receiving, by the first device via the first network, information comprising an indication that a second device changed the state of the network device”, which is merely insignificant data gathering activities (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application and is also well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II): “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routing, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of granularity) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data)”. That is, in the instant claims, these limitations merely receive or transmit/provide data which is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Further, claim 13 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into a practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 13 fails both Step 2A Prong 2 for being directed to a judicial exception that has not been integrated into a practical application and Step 2B for not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 13 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
With regard to claim 14, it recites additional elements of “receiving, by the first device via the second network, an indication of a change to the state of the network device” and “requesting, by the first device and to the second network, a source of the change”, which are merely insignificant data gathering activities (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application and is also well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II): “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routing, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of granularity) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data)”. That is, in the instant claims, these limitations merely receive or transmit/provide data which is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Further, claim 14 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into a practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 14 fails both Step 2A Prong 2 for being directed to a judicial exception that has not been integrated into a practical application and Step 2B for not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 14 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
With regard to claim 15, it recites additional elements of “receiving, by the first device and from the second network, the source”, which is merely insignificant data gathering activities (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application and is also well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II): “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routing, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of granularity) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data)”. That is, in the instant claims, these limitations merely receive or transmit/provide data which is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Further, claim 15 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into a practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 15 fails both Step 2A Prong 2 for being directed to a judicial exception that has not been integrated into a practical application and Step 2B for not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 15 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
With regard to claim 16, it recites additional elements of “in response to a second device on the first network causing a change of state to the network device, receiving, by the first device via the second network, an indication that the second device is a source that caused the change of state”, which is merely insignificant data gathering activities (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application and is also well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II): “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routing, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of granularity) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data)”. That is, in the instant claims, these limitations merely receive or transmit/provide data which is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Further, claim 16 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into a practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 16 fails both Step 2A Prong 2 for being directed to a judicial exception that has not been integrated into a practical application and Step 2B for not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 16 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Therefore, claims 9-16 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chang (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0137436, hereinafter “Chang”).
Claim 9:
Chang discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium, comprising:
computer-readable instructions that, when executed by a processor (§ 0061, Lines 6-8; Code to implement the present invention may be operably disposed in internal memory 806 or stored on storage media), cause the processor to perform one or more operations comprising:
connecting, by a first device (gateway 105), to a first network (any of networks 100, 110, and 115) associated with a first device type, and to a second network (the entire network depicted in Fig. 1) associated with the first device type and at least a second device type different from the first device type (§ 0028, Lines 4-8; A single gateway 105 serves multiple heterogeneous home automation networks (100, 110, 115). In this mode, one gateway 105 is deployed to bridge the communication between multiple home automation networks, each utilizing a different home automation technology);
generating a command to change a state of a network device;
encoding, by the first device, at least a portion of the command to prevent identification of the first device over the second network; and
providing, by the first device via the first network, the command.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-7, 10-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0137436, hereinafter “Chang”) in view of Marshall et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0303186, hereinafter “Marshall”).
Claim 1:
Chang discloses method, comprising:
connecting, by a first device (gateway 105) having a first device type, to a first network (any of networks 100, 110, and 115) associated with the first device type, and to a second network (the entire network depicted in Fig. 1) associated with the first device type and at least a second device type different from the first device type (§ 0028, Lines 4-8; A single gateway 105 serves multiple heterogeneous home automation networks (100, 110, 115). In this mode, one gateway 105 is deployed to bridge the communication between multiple home automation networks, each utilizing a different home automation technology).
Chang does not appear to disclose in response a change of state of a network device on the second network, receiving, by the first device via the second network, information indicating a source that caused the change of state.
Marshall discloses in response a change of state of a network device on the second network (§ 0058, Lines 1-3; In response to detecting the event, the device 406 can change a state of the device indicating that an event has been triggered), receiving, by the first device via the second network, information indicating a source that caused the change of state (§ 0059, Lines 5-8; The leader device 402 can process the event and/or state information to identify an event type, a timestamp associated with the event, or a device originating the event) (§ 0060, Lines 1-3; The leader device 402 can forward the event and/or state change data to all devices in the network).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Chang’s gateway by integrating features of Marshall’s leader device in order to coordinate event and/or state information of a device across other devices in a network environment, thereby increasing computing efficiency of device in the network and reduce latency in data communication across the network (Marshall, § 0027, Lines 1-3 and 8-11).
Claim 2:
Chang in view of Marshall further discloses wherein:
the first network is a first home network configured to communicatively couple devices having the first device type (Chang, § 0039, Lines 16-18; Insteon™ network 300 and Echelon™ network 305), and the second network is a second home network configured to communicatively couple devices having the first device type or second device type (Chang, § 0028, Lines 4-8; A single gateway 105 serves multiple heterogeneous home automation networks (100, 110, 115). In this mode, one gateway 105 is deployed to bridge the communication between multiple home automation networks, each utilizing a different home automation technology).
Claim 3:
Chang in view of Marshall further discloses wherein:
the first device type is configured to communicate over the first home network or the second home network (Chang, § 0039, Lines 16-18; Insteon™ network 300 and Echelon™ network 305, thus Insteon™ and Echelon™ devices communicate over their respective networks), and
the second device type is configured to communicate over the second home network but not the first home network (Chang, § 0028, Lines 11-13; Without the gateway 105, HACDs on network 110 would not be able to communicate and interoperate with HACDs on network 100).
Claim 4:
Chang in view of Marshall further discloses wherein receiving the information comprises receiving an indication that the source comprises a second device registered on one of the first network or the second network (Marshall, § 0056, Lines 4-6; A first cluster can include a first leader device (e.g., leader device 402) and devices (e.g., devices 404, 406, and 408)).
Claim 5:
Chang in view of Marshall further discloses wherein the network device comprises the second device type (Marshall, § 0058, Lines 1-3; In response to detecting the event, the device 406 can change a state of the device indicating that an event has been triggered) (Chang, § 0028, Lines 4-8; A single gateway 105 serves multiple heterogeneous home automation networks (100, 110, 115). In this mode, one gateway 105 is deployed to bridge the communication between multiple home automation networks, each utilizing a different home automation technology).
Claim 6:
Chang in view of Marshall further discloses wherein receiving the information comprises receiving an indication that the source comprises a manual interaction by a user with the network device (Marshall, § 0057, Lines 3-7; An event can include an initiation of an alarm (e.g., via an interface on the device 406 or speech by a user) or a triggering of a doorbell (e.g., by interacting with the doorbell or detecting motion at the doorbell)).
Claim 7:
Chang in view of Marshall further discloses wherein the receiving the information comprises receiving an indication that source comprises an automated change by the network device (Marshall, § 0058, Lines 1-3; In response to detecting the event, the device 406 can change a state of the device indicating that an event has been triggered).
Claim 10:
Chang discloses the medium as recited in claim 9, wherein the third network is associated with the second device type (§ 0023, Lines 2-8; A gateway device is a network device that acts as a translator between multiple heterogeneous home automation networks, allowing home automation devices of one type on one network to seamlessly discover, communicate with, and interoperate with home automation devices of a different type on a different network in a peer-to-peer manner).
Chang does not appear to disclose encoding the command to prevent the identification of the first device by a third network communicatively coupled with the second network.
Marshall discloses encoding the command that changes a state of a network device (§ 0058, Lines 1-3; In response to detecting the event, the device 406 can change a state of the device indicating that an event has been triggered) (§ 0064; An action can be performed by all devices with observers registered to the event such as initiating an output, sending a notification to another device, or triggering another device to perform an action) to prevent the identification of the first device by a third network communicatively coupled with the second network (§ 0098, Lines 8-14; De-identification may be facilitated by removing identifiers, controlling the amount or specificity of data stored, controlling how data is stored, and/or other methods such as differential privacy).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Chang’s gateway by integrating features of Marshall’s leader device in order to coordinate event and/or state information of a device across other devices in a network environment, thereby increasing computing efficiency of device in the network and reduce latency in data communication across the network (Marshall, § 0027, Lines 1-3 and 8-11).
Claim 11:
Chang discloses the medium as recited in claim 9.
Chang does not appear to disclose wherein:
the first network is configured to communicatively couple devices having the first device type, and
the second network is configured to communicatively couple devices having the first device type or second device type.
Marshall discloses:
the first network is configured to communicatively couple devices having the first device type (Chang, § 0039, Lines 16-18; Insteon™ network 300 and Echelon™ network 305), and the second network is configured to communicatively couple devices having the first device type or second device type (Chang, § 0028, Lines 4-8; A single gateway 105 serves multiple heterogeneous home automation networks (100, 110, 115). In this mode, one gateway 105 is deployed to bridge the communication between multiple home automation networks, each utilizing a different home automation technology).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Chang’s gateway by integrating features of Marshall’s leader device in order to coordinate event and/or state information of a device across other devices in a network environment, thereby increasing computing efficiency of device in the network and reduce latency in data communication across the network (Marshall, § 0027, Lines 1-3 and 8-11).
Claim 12:
Chang in view of Marshall further discloses the first device type is configured to communicate over the first or second network (Chang, § 0039, Lines 16-18; Insteon™ network 300 and Echelon™ network 305, thus Insteon™ and Echelon™ devices communicate over their respective networks), and the second device type is configured to communicate over the second network but not the first network (Chang, § 0028, Lines 11-13; Without the gateway 105, HACDs on network 110 would not be able to communicate and interoperate with HACDs on network 100).
Claim 13:
Chang discloses the medium as recited in claim 9.
Chang does not appear to disclose receiving, by the first device via the first network, information comprising an indication that a second device changed the state of the network device.
Marshall discloses receiving, by the first device via the first network, information comprising an indication that a second device changed the state of the network device (Marshall, § 0021, Lines 2-4; The device 114 can change its state to an activated state in response to receiving an input (e.g., the doorbell being triggered or an alarm being set)) (Marshall, § 0024, Lines 8-13; The second device can be registered as an observer device monitoring for an event comprising an interaction with the doorbell. The second device can be configured to perform an action based on the event, such as output a chime, turn on a light, or send a notification to a mobile device).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Chang’s gateway by integrating features of Marshall’s leader device in order to coordinate event and/or state information of a device across other devices in a network environment, thereby increasing computing efficiency of device in the network and reduce latency in data communication across the network (Marshall, § 0027, Lines 1-3 and 8-11).
Claim 14:
Chang discloses the medium as recited in claim 9.
Chang does not appear to disclose:
receiving, by the first device via the second network, an indication of a change to the state of the network device; and
requesting, by the first device and to the second network, a source of the change.
Marshall discloses receiving, by the first device via the second network, an indication of a change to the state of the network device (§ 0059, Lines 5-8; The leader device 402 can process the event and/or state information to identify an event type, a timestamp associated with the event, or a device originating the event) and requesting, by the first device and to the second network, a source of the change (§ 0061, Lines 2-4; Determining whether an observer of each device is registered for the event).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Chang’s gateway by integrating features of Marshall’s leader device in order to coordinate event and/or state information of a device across other devices in a network environment, thereby increasing computing efficiency of device in the network and reduce latency in data communication across the network (Marshall, § 0027, Lines 1-3 and 8-11).
Claim 15:
Chang in view of Marshall further discloses receiving, by the first device and from the second network, the source (Marshall, § 0059, Lines 5-8; The leader device 402 can process the event and/or state information to identify an event type, a timestamp associated with the event, or a device originating the event) (Marshall, § 0060, Lines 1-3; The leader device 402 can forward the event and/or state change data to all devices in the network (e.g., devices 404, 408, and 410)).
Claim 16:
Chang discloses the medium as recited in claim 9.
Chang does not appear to disclose in response to a second device on the first network causing a change of state to the network device, receiving, by the first device via the second network, an indication that the second device is a source that caused the change of state.
Marshall discloses in response to a second device on the first network causing a change of state to the network device (§ 0057, Lines 3-7; An event can include an initiation of an alarm (e.g., via an interface on the device 406 or speech by a user) or a triggering of a doorbell (e.g., by interacting with the doorbell or detecting motion at the doorbell)), receiving, by the first device via the second network, an indication that the second device is a source that caused the change of state (§ 0059, Lines 5-8; The leader device 402 can process the event and/or state information to identify an event type, a timestamp associated with the event, or a device originating the event).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Chang’s gateway by integrating features of Marshall’s leader device in order to coordinate event and/or state information of a device across other devices in a network environment, thereby increasing computing efficiency of device in the network and reduce latency in data communication across the network (Marshall, § 0027, Lines 1-3 and 8-11).
Claim 17:
Chang discloses a system, comprising:
a memory (§ 0060, Lines 3-5; System 800 includes an internal memory 806); and
a processor (§ 0060, Lines 3-5; System 800 includes a processor 804) configured to:
connect, via a first network (any of networks 100, 110, and 115), to a device (gateway 105) associated with a first device type, connect to a second network (the entire network depicted in Fig. 1) associated with the first device type and at least a second device type different from the first device type (§ 0028, Lines 4-8; A single gateway 105 serves multiple heterogeneous home automation networks (100, 110, 115). In this mode, one gateway 105 is deployed to bridge the communication between multiple home automation networks, each utilizing a different home automation technology).
Chang does not appear to disclose:
in response a change of state of a network device on the second network:
receive, via the second network, information indicating a source that caused the change of state, and
provide, via the first network, the information to the device.
Marshall discloses in response a change of state of a network device on the second network (§ 0058, Lines 1-3; In response to detecting the event, the device 406 can change a state of the device indicating that an event has been triggered):
receive, via the second network, information indicating a source that caused the change of state, and provide, via the first network, the information to the device (§ 0059, Lines 5-8; The leader device 402 can process the event and/or state information to identify an event type, a timestamp associated with the event, or a device originating the event) (§ 0060, Lines 1-3; The leader device 402 can forward the event and/or state change data to all devices in the network).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Chang’s gateway by integrating features of Marshall’s leader device in order to coordinate event and/or state information of a device across other devices in a network environment, thereby increasing computing efficiency of device in the network and reduce latency in data communication across the network (Marshall, § 0027, Lines 1-3 and 8-11).
Claim 19:
Chang in view of Marshall further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to determine, based on the information, the source comprises a second device on the second network (Marshall, § 0059, Lines 5-8; The leader device 402 can process the event and/or state information to identify an event type, a timestamp associated with the event, or a device originating the event).
Claim 20:
Chang in view of Marshall further discloses:
provide, via the first network, a command to change a state of the network device (Marshall, § 0058, Lines 1-3; In response to detecting the event, the device 406 can change a state of the device indicating that an event has been triggered) (Marshall, § 0064; An action can be performed by all devices with observers registered to the event such as initiating an output, sending a notification to another device, or triggering another device to perform an action); and
encode the command to prevent identification by the second network (Marshall, § 0098, Lines 8-14; De-identification may be facilitated by removing identifiers, controlling the amount or specificity of data stored, controlling how data is stored, and/or other methods such as differential privacy).
Claim(s) 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0137436, hereinafter “Chang”) in view of Marshall et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0303186, hereinafter “Marshall”); further in view of Richardson et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0348718, hereinafter “Richardson”).
Claim 8:
Chang in view of Marshall discloses the method as recited in claim 1, further comprising managing and handling personal information data to minimize risks of unintentional or unauthorized access or use (Marshall, § 0098, Lines 2-4).
Chang in view of Marshall does not appear to disclose requesting, by the first device, authorization from the second network to provide the source to the first network.
Richardson discloses requesting, by the first device, authorization from the second network to provide the source to the first network (§ 0058, Lines 10-11; Setting different levels of notification access for different users).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Chang and Marshall’s managing and handling of personal information data by requesting authorization, as taught by Richardson, in order to manage privacy (Richardson, § 0058, Line 11).
Claim 18:
Chang in view of Marshall discloses the system as recited in claim 17, further comprising managing and handling personal information data to minimize risks of unintentional or unauthorized access or use (Marshall, § 0098, Lines 2-4).
Chang in view of Marshall does not appear to disclose:
obtain, from the device, authorization to release information obtained by the second network, the information comprising the source; and
obtain, from the second network and based on the authorization, the information.
Richardson discloses obtain, from the device, authorization to release information obtained by the second network, the information comprising the source (§ 0058, Lines 10-11; Setting different levels of notification access for different users) and obtain, from the second network and based on the authorization, the information (§ 0057; Different users may have different levels of permissions which may affect what notifications, if any, are afforded the particular user in response to accessory state changes, user state changes, presence state changes, and the like).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Chang and Marshall’s managing and handling of personal information data by requesting authorization, as taught by Richardson, in order to manage privacy (Richardson, § 0058, Line 11).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0359193 (Smith et al.) – Accessory devices report their states and/or state changes to home application or home daemon where an accessory state database stores entries for each accessory including an identifier for the accessory, a timestamp for when the state change occurred, and a description of the state change.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAM T TRAN whose telephone number is (408)918-7553. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM-3PM 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, Emmanuel Moise can be reached at 571-272-3865. 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.
/NAM T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455
Prosecution Insights