Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s communication filed on 10 February 2026. In virtue of this communication, claims 1-22 are currently presented in the instant application. Presently, claims 20-22 have been amended, claims 1-19 have been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the 112 rejections, changing “cellular or internet network” to “wireless network” does not overcome the rejections. Wireless cellular networks are the only supported network as discussed in the previous rejection (and reiterated below), and broadening this language to include any wireless network is considered improper. There are also no arguments presented on why board “wireless networks” are supported in the original specification.
The 112 rejections are updated and maintained.
There has been no response to the 103 and double patenting rejections, and limited to no response regarding the specification and claim objections (the “example” used in the objection of the specification was amended, while not addressing that there are substantially far more issues to be corrected).
Applicant’s arguments instead are a copy and paste document that was submitted in the co-pending application 11/642,189, and has no correspondence or relation to the rejections in this application.
As there have been no substantive arguments presented, and the new amendments are considered to be improper, all rejections will be maintained, and the rejection will be final (see below).
Specification
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification are: the phrase “step #” still remains in positions such as on amended submitted page 7, lines 6, 13, 16. In line 11 of that same amended page 7, the language “displayed The Fig. 3” is used, which is not clear, concise, or exact.
These are non-limiting examples. Applicant should review the entire specification and make amendments accordingly.
Claim Objections
Claims 20-22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Due to the indenting of the claim, it is unclear if all of the limitations following a “:” are directed to the proceeding element, such as the “security camera having:” or not.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph 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 the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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.
Claims 20-22 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(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As of the original specification, there is no support for the limitation “wherein the still picture or motion picture with text of the emergency are automatically sent out together by the security camera through the wireless network as an alert to the receiving mobile phone, and via the stored telephone number…” (Examiner’s emphasis). There is only support in the original specification for the security alerts to be transmitted through wireless cellular networks only. By broadening the language to wireless networks as a whole, communication outside of this limited example is being claimed.
This limitation is found in all three claims and all three are rejected.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 20-22 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Monroe (Publication No.: US 2008/0016366 A1, cited in the previous Office Action, herein known as D1) in view of Sham (Publication No.: US 2008/0018480 A1, cited in the previous Office Action, herein known as D2).
All three claims will be rejected as a whole, as the only substantial difference between the claims is the presence of a smoke detector (claim 20), motion detector (claim 21), or both (claim 22). As Claim 22 also contains additional limitations regarding a remote control, it will be used in the rejection.
With respect to claim 22, D1 discloses a security system, comprising:
a security camera having (security appliance, Fig. 3):
a housing having an inner cavity, wherein a smoke detector and a motion detector are positioned within the cavity of the housing ([0233]); and
wherein the security camera will automatically connect and communicate over a telecommunication network;
wherein the telecommunication network is a wireless network (for cellular, [0034]; transmits data using typical bandwidth carriers such as public telephone system, wireless carriers such as cellular telephones; for internet, see abstract);
a wireless remote control associated with the security camera and configured to:
program the security camera to automatically capture and capture and send a still picture or motion picture to a remote computer ([0236] when activated, camera captures local scenes and sends them to the monitoring station on the local network or wide-area network),
program the security camera to store the central monitoring devices information; and program the security camera to specify an amount of alerts the security camera sends to the receiving mobile phone when the smoke detector or the motion detector is activated related to an emergency in an area proximate to the security camera ([0241]; centralized system monitoring station automatically detects and configures the individual sensors or appliances to be automatically recognized and monitored, and set/control the relevant operating parameters remotely, which can include the alarms such as described in [0248] where network messages can be used to alter the volume or flash rate of an alarm; see also D2 below which further teaches remote control over a system);
wherein the still picture or motion picture includes a provider and user code ([0237]; when an alarm is activated the alarm transmits its device ID and the location ID to the device to turn on the camera and microphone and alerts the central monitoring station);
wherein the still picture or motion picture of the emergency are automatically sent out together by the security camera through the wireless network as an alert to the receiving computer, when the smoke detector or the motion detector is activated ([0236] when activated, camera captures local scenes and sends them to the monitoring station on the local network or wide-area network);
wherein the alerts do not exceed the specified amount of alerts related to the emergency ([0248] where network messages can be used to alter the volume or flash rate of an alarm);
wherein the remote computer identifies the security camera via caller ID or via the provider and user code ([0237]; when an alarm is activated the alarm transmits its device ID and the location ID to the device to turn on the camera and microphone and alerts the central monitoring station).
D1 does not disclose that the remote computer is a receiving mobile phone, programming the mobile phones telephone number, or sending text with the still or video images.
D1 additionally teaches that after the central monitoring station is contacted, the security station can then summon appropriate help such as police, fire, ambulances, or other services ([0233]).
D2 teaches a monitoring device that discloses sending alerts over an internet or cellular network in text format with visual display images alone or in combination with the text message ([0008]). D2 further teaches the ability to use a terminal in wireless communication with the device with a keypad to input custom messages in text to provide alerts, and the telephone numbers for alert contacts being user-inputted prior to use of the apparatus, and trying each mobile number a certain amount of times in a hierarchy order until an adequate connection is made and the message sent ([0012]-[0013]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the device of D1 by programming and sending the alerts of D1 to a mobile phone instead of solely relying on the centralized server to contact and summon the police/fire/ambulance ([0233]) as taught by D2 which allows direct contact of these services and saving critical time in an emergency. It would also be obvious to incorporate into the combination setting an ordered list for the contacts and to call each a certain amount of times before moving to the next emergency contact to allow for a priority of services instead of all being overwhelmed simultaneously as taught by D2, and incorporating text into the still/video feed of D1 as taught by D2 to better explain the nature of the emergency and other critical information.
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 20-22 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 32-33 of copending Application No. 11/642189 in view of D1 and D2.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
With respect to claim 20, claim 32 of the copending application claims nearly identical features (or equivalents with slightly different wording, see for example the ‘built in electronic circuit positioned within the cavity that enables the security camera to connect and communicate over a network’ of the copending application compared to ‘wherein the security camera will automatically connect and communicate over a telecommunication network’, as both have a similar functionality and would be obvious that some structure would be required to enable the communication) with the following substantial differences:
the present claim has additionally the network being a wireless network (D1 and D2 both teach communication over a cellular network as rejected above, and would be obvious to do so in order to communicate over a network);
the copending application further claims a remote control (see the rejection of the features in claim 22 above in view of D1 and D2 for the reasons for obviousness).
With respect to claim 21, claim 32 of the copending application claims nearly identical features (or equivalents with slightly different wording, see for example the ‘built in electronic circuit positioned within the cavity that enables the security camera to connect and communicate over a network’ of the copending application compared to ‘wherein the security camera will automatically connect and communicate over a telecommunication network’, as both have a similar functionality and would be obvious that some structure would be required to enable the communication) with the following substantial differences:
the present claim claims having a motion detector instead of solely a smoke detector (D1 teaches having both in the same device in the above rejection of claim 22 and would be obvious to incorporate to add an additional security feature of intruder detection);
the present claim has additionally the network being a wireless network (D1 and D2 both teach communication over a cellular network as rejected above, and would be obvious to do so in order to communicate over a network);
the copending application further claims a remote control (see the rejection of the features in claim 22 above in view of D1 and D2 for the reasons for obviousness).
With respect to claim 22, claim 33 of the copending application claims nearly identical features (or equivalents with slightly different wording, see for example the ‘built in electronic circuit positioned within the cavity that enables the security camera to connect and communicate over a network’ of the copending application compared to ‘wherein the security camera will automatically connect and communicate over a telecommunication network’, as both have a similar functionality and would be obvious that some structure would be required to enable the communication) with the following differences:
the present claim claims having a motion detector instead of solely a smoke detector (D1 teaches having both in the same device in the above rejection of claim 22 and would be obvious to incorporate to add an additional security feature of intruder detection).
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIANA HANCOCK whose telephone number is (571)270-7547. The examiner can normally be reached on 10AM-6PM EST M-F.
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, Stephanie Bloss can be reached on (571) 272-3555. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/D.H/Examiner, Art Unit 2852
3/12/2026
/STEPHANIE E BLOSS/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852