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 .
This communication is in response to Applicant’s response filed on 06/12/2025.
Claims 23-24 are pending. Claims 1-22 have been cancelled.
Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejections.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the Fig. 3 must show the claimed “process a second alarm signal received from the security sensor subsequent to the first alarm signal while any mobile device detected by the device is not determined to be in the list of authorized mobile devices; and respond to a second predetermined input received subsequent to the second alarm signal by transitioning the central security monitoring device from the armed mode to a disarmed mode of the central security monitoring device” as claimed in claim 24, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
Claimed “central security monitoring device,” in claims 23, is interpreted to be “central security monitoring device 114 in which central security monitoring device 114 identifies people and/or their mobile devices in or near premises 102. Specifically, FIG. 2 shows processor 200, memory 202, communication interface 204, and a receiver 206.” See ¶ 0020;
Claimed “a security sensor;” in claims 23-24 interpreted to be “motion sensor” See ¶ 0014.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“central security monitoring device to: ignore… process… respond …” in claim 24, interpreted to be “central security monitoring device, comprising a receiver for receiving alarm signals from the one or more security sensors, a non-transient memory for storing processor-executable instructions and a list of authorized mobile devices that are authorized to enter the monitored premises, and a processor, coupled to the receiver and the memory, for executing the processor-executable instructions that causes the central security monitoring device to receive an alarm signal from one of the security sensors indicating intrusion into the monitored premises, in response to receiving the alarm signal, determine if there are any unauthorized mobile devices in or near the monitored premises” See ¶ 0005, 0020 and
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Specification
Specification is objected under 37 CFR 1.72: The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed, See MPEP 606.01.
The following title is suggested: Processing alarm signal and identifying false alarm whenever unauthorized mobile device detected near monitored premises.
If a satisfactory title is not supplied by the applicant, the examiner may, at the time of allowance, change the title by an examiner’s amendment. See MPEP § 1302.04(a).
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 23 and 24 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 new matter 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.
Claim 23 recites, “process a second alarm signal received from the security sensor subsequent to the first alarm signal while any mobile device detected to be in or near the monitored premises is not determined to be in the list of authorized mobile devices.” Examiner was unable to find any support for the claimed limitation. Applicant is requested to point to the section of the specification that teaches “second alarm signal received from the security sensor subsequent to the first alarm signal while any mobile device detected … is not determined to be in the list of authorized mobile devices.” Claim 24 is rejected for the same reason.
Claim 23 recites, “respond to a second predetermined input received subsequent to the second alarm signal by transitioning the central security monitoring device from the armed mode to a disarmed mode of the central security monitoring device.” Although there is support in the specification for, “transitioning the central security monitoring device from the armed mode to a disarmed mode of the central security monitoring device.” Examiner is unable to find the section of the specification teaching, “respond to a second predetermined input received subsequent to the second alarm signal by transitioning the central security monitoring device from the armed mode to a disarmed mode.” Please point to the section of the specification that teaches the claimed limitation. Claim 24 is rejected for the same reason.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 23 recites, “process a second alarm signal received from the security sensor subsequent to the first alarm signal while any mobile device detected to be in or near the monitored premises is not determined to be in the list of authorized mobile devices.” However, claim 23 has established in the preceding limitation that “while each mobile device detected to be in or near the monitored premises is determined to be in the list of authorized mobile devices.” Therefore, if “each mobile device detected to be in or near the monitored premises is determined to be in the list of authorized mobile devices” then how can “any mobile device detected to be in or near the monitored premises is not determined to be in the list of authorized mobile devices.” Therefore, claim 23 is rejected under 35 USC 112(b) because it is unclear to the Examiner the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 24 is rejected for the same reason.
Claim 24 recites, “the central security monitoring device will: ignore first alarm signal … while each mobile device detected to be in or near the monitored premises is determined to be in the list of authorized mobile devices… while any mobile device detected to be in or near the monitored premises is not determined to be in the list of authorized mobile devices…” It is unclear to the examiner whether an image of the mobile device or an identification number of the mobile device is being compared with an image or an identification number in the list of authorized mobile devices make such determinations. Examiner has no clue as to how such determination is being made by the central security monitoring device. Therefore, claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: “processor 200 compares the identification information of any newly-discovered person or mobile device to the list of authorized persons or mobile devices previously stored in memory 202 to make this determination. If a match is not found, processor 200 considers the newly-discovered person/mobile device to be unauthorized and stores an indication in memory 202 that an unauthorized person and/or mobile device is present in or near premises 102.” See specification 0040.
Claim 23 recites, “the central security monitoring device to:… ignore first alarm signal … while each mobile device detected to be in or near the monitored premises is determined to be in the list of authorized mobile devices… while any mobile device detected to be in or near the monitored premises is not determined to be in the list of authorized mobile devices…” It is unclear to the examiner whether an image of the mobile device or an identification number of the mobile device is being compared with an image or an identification number in the list of authorized mobile devices make such determinations. Examiner has no clue as to how such determination is being made by the central security monitoring device. Therefore, Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: “processor 200 compares the identification information of any newly-discovered person or mobile device to the list of authorized persons or mobile devices previously stored in memory 202 to make this determination. If a match is not found, processor 200 considers the newly-discovered person/mobile device to be unauthorized and stores an indication in memory 202 that an unauthorized person and/or mobile device is present in or near premises 102.” See specification 0040.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sweeney (US 2017/0352255 A1), in view of Lucy (US 20190266817 A1), in view of Correnti (US 2019/0199756 A1), and further in view of Hutz (US 2016/0189510 A1).
Consider claim 23, Sweeney teaches, a security system (100), comprising:
a security sensor (104) located in and around a monitored premises (102), Sweeney teaches, “a security system 100 monitoring premises 102 in accordance with the teachings herein, comprising door sensor 104, personal communication device 106, remote monitoring facility 108, wide-area network 110, central security controller 112, router/modem 114… Although only one sensor 104 is shown in FIG. 1, in practice a number of sensors are typically installed throughout premises 102 in order to detect “events” that may occur at premises 102, such as a door or window being opened, movement or sound within premises 10” See ¶ 0019;
With respect to, a central security monitoring device (112), Sweeney teaches, “FIG. 3 illustrates a functional block diagram of central security controller 112” See ¶ 0033, comprising:
With respect to, a receiver (306) for receiving an alarm signal from the security sensor (104), Sweeney teaches, “[r]eceiver 306 comprises circuitry necessary to wirelessly receive electronic signals from the sensors” see ¶ 0037;
With respect to, a non-transient memory for storing processor-executable instructions, Sweeney teaches, “[m]emory 302 is used to store the processor-executable instructions for operation of central security controller 112 as well as any information used by processor 300” See ¶ 0035, and a list of authorized mobile devices, Sweeney teaches, “personal communication device 106, prior to a device being permitted to automatically disarm security system 100. A device may become authorized during the pre-registration process, by providing identification information of the device to security controller 112. For example, a device may communicate with security controller 112 via a website associated with security controller 112 or directly with security controller 112 via the local area network, allowing a user of security system 100 to provide a MAC address, mobile phone number, email address, etc., to security controller 112, where it is stored by processor 300 in memory 302, for later use in identifying authorized devices.” See ¶ 0043; and
a processor (300), coupled to the receiver (306) and the non-transient memory 302, for executing the processor-executable instructions, Sweeney teaches, “[p]rocessor 300 is configured to provide general operation of central security controller 112 by executing processor-executable instructions stored in memory 302…” See ¶ 0034 that causes the central security monitoring device to:
respond to a first predetermined input (404) by causing the central security monitoring device to operate in an armed mode of the central security monitoring device in which the central security monitoring device will, Sweeney teaches, “[s]ecurity system 100 may be activated, or “armed”, when a person leaves premises 102. Typically, the person will enter a code or other indication into keypad 116, which alerts central security controller 112 of the person's desire to arm the system… whereupon security system 100 becomes “active” and will take one or more prescribed actions if an event occurs as detected by one of the sensors.” See ¶ 0020; Sweeney teaches, “At block 404, the user leaves the user's home or business, arming security system 100 via traditional methods, such as entering a code into keypad 116 or into personal communication device 106, via the app, or some other software application resident on personal communication device 106, for transmitting an “arm” code to security system 100.” See ¶ 0044:
With respect to, while each mobile device detected to be in or near the monitored premises is determined to be in the list of authorized mobile devices, Sweeney teaches, “the personal communication device 106 transmits its identification information to security controller 112 each time that the device enters a communication range of a local area network associated with the user’s home or business.” See ¶ 0043; Sweeney teaches, “processor 300 compares the received MAC address associated with the disarm command to one or more MAC addresses stored in memory 302 to determine if a match is found, indicating that the disarm command originated from an authorized personal communication device.” See ¶ 0055. Nonetheless, in an analogous art, Lucy teaches, “[m]onitoring a physical area for unauthorized access by a user of a wireless device includes setting a wireless signal scanning range using at least one wireless scanning device, detecting a wireless signal within the scanning range, determining a status of the wireless device of authorized, unauthorized or unknown, monitoring scan data obtained from the scanning device during the time the wireless signal remains within the scanning range.” See Abstract. Lucy teaches, “monitoring a physical area for unauthorized access by a user of a wireless device includes the steps of storing in a database an authorized wireless device ID list and an unauthorized wireless device ID list and setting a wireless signal scanning range using at least one wireless scanning device, the scanning range corresponding to the physical area being monitored.” See ¶ 0004. Lucy teaches, “the computer implemented monitoring and unauthorized access detection method and system, shown in FIG. 2, the scan device 10 scans for a wireless signal in step S10. If a wireless signal is detected, in step S12 the computer system 14 compares the device ID with the database to determine whether or not the wireless signal is from an authorized device.” See ¶ 0022.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Sweeney and “causes central security controller 112 to perform one or more actions only when an alarm signal from a sensor is received…” as suggested by Sweeney, See ¶ 0039 and “the scan device 10 scans for a wireless signal… determines whether or not the wireless signal is from an unauthorized device…[i]f the signal is not from an unauthorized device” as suggested by Lucy ¶ 0022-0023, then no alert/alarm is needed, in an effort to design the system that “solves this issue by have false and valid alarms captured and sent to a central database so that a learning algorithm can be utilized to eliminate the false positives.”
With respect to, ignore a first alarm signal received from the security sensor, Sweeney does not normally ignore the alarm signal the armed mode. However, Sweeney teaches, “[t]he armed-home mode typically causes central security controller 112 to perform one or more actions only when an alarm signal from a sensor is received. In other words, alarm signals generated by motion sensors and other occupancy sensors (such as thermal detectors or floor pressure sensors) are ignored by central security controller 112.” See ¶ 0039. Therefore, Sweeney teaches, to perform one or more actions when an alarm signal … is received from a specific sensor but ignored if received from motion sensors and other occupancy sensors such as thermal detectors or floor pressure sensors. In view of Lucy, one or more actions will be to determine from an unauthorized device at step S16. Lucy teaches, “the computer system 14 determines whether or not the wireless signal is from an unauthorized device at step S16. If the signal is from an unauthorized device, YES at step S16, the computer system 14 activates a security alert at step S18.” See ¶ 0022. Lucy teaches, “[i]f the signal is not from an unauthorized device, NO at step S16, the computer system 14 determines the device is unknown and begins obtaining and recording information at step S20 from the signal.” See ¶ 0023, and Lucy Flowchart in Fig. 2 shows that the step S18 “Activate security device” does not happen and the process loops back to step S10 “scan for wireless signal” after making a note of the false alarm in an effort to improve the algorithm; hence, in view of Lucy, Sweeney’s alarm signal will be ignored after the “perform[ing] one or more actions”; in an analogous art, Correnti teaches, “a monitoring system that can detect a hacking drone and secure one or more networks associated with a property based on the detection of a hacking drone within a vicinity of a property.” See ¶ 0003. Correnti teaches, “the detection of an unauthorized drone, a hacker drone, or both, by the monitoring system control unit 110, the monitoring application server 160, or both, may result in an alarm event being triggered at the property 101 and notification being generated and transmitted to the central alarm station server 170. The central alarm station server 170 may determine whether or not law enforcement agents need to be deployed to the property 101 based on the detection of the hacker drone 105.” See ¶ 0059. Correnti teaches, “the monitoring unit can perform a search of an authorized drone database based on obtained sensor data. If an entry storing data representing one or more drone attributes is found in the authorized drone database that matches data representing the obtained sensor data within a predetermined similarity threshold, then the monitoring unit can ignore the presence of the drone represented by the obtained sensor data because the drone is an authorized drone. Alternatively, if an entry storing data representing one or more drone attributes is not found in the authorized drone database that matches data representing the obtained sensor data within a predetermined similarity threshold, then the monitoring unit can determine that the drone represented by the obtained sensor data is an unauthorized drone.” See ¶ 0063.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of invention to modify the combination of Sweeney-Lucy and “the monitoring unit can ignore the presence of the drone represented by the obtained sensor data because the drone is an authorized drone” and thus determines the no need for “law enforcement agents need to be deployed to the property 101” thereby designing a security system that uses the public law enforcement resources efficiently.
With respect to, process a second alarm signal received from the security sensor subsequent to the first alarm signal, Sweeney teaches, “At block 404, the user leaves the user's home or business, arming security system 100 via traditional methods,… At some time later, at block 406, the user approaches the user's home or business while security system 100 is armed, meaning that security controller 112 will take one or more predetermined actions when a door or window is opened, or when an occupancy sensor determines that movement has occurred within premises 102.” See ¶ 0044, and 0045.Therefore, Sweeney’s system continuously monitor alarm signal occupancy sensor determines whether an authorized user is approaching by identifying authorized devices and determining “within range of the local area network is an “authorized” device to control operation of security system 100.” See ¶ 0057, Sweeney teaches, “At block 420, when the disarm command is found to be not from originating from a device within range or router/modem 114, processor 300 does not cause security controller 112 to disarm security system 100… when either the subnet of the source address of the disarm command does not match the subnet of the local area network (or the subnet of the IP address assigned to security controller 112) or the identification code associated with the disarm command does not match the identification code stored in memory 302, processor 300 does not cause security controller 112 to disarm security system 100.” See ¶ 0060,
With respect to, when any mobile device detected to be in or near the monitored premises is not determined to be in the list of authorized mobile devices, Lucy teaches, “In step S84, in response to determining, by the computer, that the wireless device ID associated with the wireless signal does not match a wireless ID in the authorized wireless ID list nor the unauthorized wireless ID list, in step S86 receiving, by the computer from the wireless signal detection device, signal strength information associated with the detected wireless signal for a predetermined time interval.” See ¶ 0035. Lucy teaches, “the computer system 14 determines whether or not the wireless signal is from an unauthorized device at step S16. If the signal is from an unauthorized device, YES at step S16, the computer system 14 activates a security alert at step S18.” See ¶ 0022. Lucy teaches, “[i]f the signal is not from an unauthorized device, NO at step S16, the computer system 14 determines the device is unknown and begins obtaining and recording information at step S20 from the signal. The obtained scan data is representative of the in-range wireless signal and may include device ID, device type, signal strength, and other data obtained from the signal by the scanning device 10.” See ¶ 0023. Lucy teaches, “[t]he computer system 14 at step S24 performs pattern matching between the behavior pattern determined from the monitored signal and the patterns in the database to determine if a match is found to a suspicious pattern. The match may be based on a similarity within a predefined threshold or as determined by a machine learning model. If a match is found to a suspicious pattern, YES at step S24, an alert is created and/or a security device is activated at step S26.” See ¶ 0024. Lucy Flowchart in Fig. 2 shows that the step S18 can “Activate security device” if the wireless device is not matched with one of the authorized devices at step S12, and Flowchart in Fig. 2 further shows that the step S26 can “activate device” if the wireless device is not matched with one of the authorized devices at step S12.
With respect to, while any mobile device detected to be in or near the monitored premises is not determined to be in the list of authorized mobile devices, in an analogous art, Hutz teaches, “tracking intruders of a monitored property by the unique identifying characteristics or “digital fingerprints” of electronic devices carried by the intruders.” See ¶ 0004. Hutz teaches, “the type of the detected alarm event includes a security breach event and the electronic device detection procedures includes determining unknown mobile electronic devices within the monitored property and providing an alert that indicates the unknown mobile electronic devices determined to be within the monitored property.” See ¶ 0008. Hutz teaches, “[t]he system 100 compares determined electronic identifiers for mobile electronic devices to the list of electronic identifiers (1020). For example, for each electronic identifier for a mobile electronic device determined to be within the monitored property at a time corresponding to the alarm event, the monitor control unit 110 may determine whether the electronic identifier matches an electronic identifier in the access list of known devices that are associated with the monitored property.” See ¶ 0072. Hutz teaches, “For each non-matching electronic identifier, the system 100 triggers an alarm response appropriate for unknown devices (1050). For example, the monitor control unit 110 may trigger a camera to record a location associated with an unknown mobile electronic device and provide an alert to a homeowner indicating the electronic identifier of the unknown mobile electronic device and including a video recording of the location associated with the unknown mobile electronic device.” See ¶ 0075.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of invention (effective filing date for AIA application) to modify the combination of Sweeney-Lucy-Correnti and incorporate “system 100 compares determined electronic identifiers for mobile electronic devices to the list of electronic identifiers (1020). For example, for each electronic identifier for a mobile electronic device determined to be within the monitored property at a time corresponding to the alarm event, the monitor control unit 110 may determine whether the electronic identifier matches an electronic identifier in the access list of known devices that are associated with the monitored property.” See ¶ 0072. “For each non-matching electronic identifier, the system 100 triggers an alarm response appropriate for unknown devices (1050). For example, the monitor control unit 110 may trigger a camera to record a location associated with an unknown mobile electronic device” See ¶ 0075, in an effort to, “provide an alert to a homeowner indicating the electronic identifier of the unknown mobile electronic device and including a video recording of the location associated with the unknown mobile electronic device.” See ¶ 0075, as suggested by Hutz, and provide possible intrusion alert.
With respect to, respond to a second predetermined input (610) received subsequent to the second alarm signal by, as established above, Sweeney’s system continuously monitor alarm signal occupancy sensor determines whether an authorized user is approaching by identifying authorized devices and determining “within range of the local area network is an “authorized” device to control operation of security system 100.” See ¶ 0057, and therefore, continuously receives the claimed first, second, and so on alarm signal from sensors, (even after the system is in armed-home mode); Sweeney teaches, “when the disarm command from server 120 is not received by security controller 112 prior to the entry door being opened, security controller 112 typically causes keypad 116 to begin a countdown timer to remind the user to enter a disarm code into keypad 116 before the countdown timer expires. The countdown timer typically comprises a 30 second time period for the user to enter a correct disarm code into keypad 116. Failure to do so generally results in security controller 112 taking one or more predetermined actions, such as sounding a local alarm signal, illuminating lights, and/or alerting remote monitoring station 112 that an alarm condition has occurred.” See ¶ 0078.
With respect to, transitioning the central security monitoring device from the armed mode to a disarmed mode of the central security monitoring device, Sweeney teaches, Sweeney teaches, “if server 120 discovers that the user, via the user's personal communication device 106, is in proximity to the user's home or business, as described in any of the embodiments above, server 120 transmits a disarm command to security controller 112, and security controller 112 terminates the countdown timer when the disarm command is accepted. Security controller 112 may additionally provide an indication to keypad 116 that the system has been disarmed,” See ¶ 0078.
Consider claim 24, a method, performed by a central security monitoring device, comprising:
operating in an armed mode of the central security monitoring device in which the central security monitoring device will:
ignore a first alarm signal received from a security sensor while each mobile device detected by a device associated with the central security monitoring device is determined to be in a list of authorized mobile devices stored in a memory of the central security monitoring device;
process a second alarm signal received from the security sensor subsequent to the first alarm signal while any mobile device detected by the device is not determined to be in the list of authorized mobile devices; and
respond to a second predetermined input received subsequent to the second alarm signal by transitioning the central security monitoring device from the armed mode to a disarmed mode of the central security monitoring device, See Rejection of claim 23.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Omer S. Khan whose telephone number is (571)270-5146. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 am to 8:00 pm 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, Brian A. Zimmerman can be reached at 571-272-3059. 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.
/Omer S Khan/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686