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 .
Response to Amendment
1. This action is responsive to an amendment filed on 04/07/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicants arguments filed in the 04/07/2026 remarks have been fully considered but are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection which is deemed appropriate to address all of the needs at this time.
Amendment
3. Amendment provided alters the claimed invention, however, the new features that are introduced are just automatic initiation of a call (conference call) in light of an alarm condition. Current prior art are still valid as the concepts of the previous rejection and newly amendment features are addressed with new prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
5. Claim(s) 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Westmacott et al. (US 2018/0114430) in view of Hansen et al. (US 2007/0086578) in further view of Sammon et al. (US 2014/0082100) in further view of Martin et al. (US 2019/0174289).
Regarding claim 1, Westmacott teaches an alarm system comprising: an installation area network operable to detect an alarm condition in an installation area; wherein the installation area network comprises a controller of a security panel; wherein the controller is operably coupled to at least one sensor and a plurality of devices distributed throughout the installation area (see fig. 1, ¶ 0043-0050. The alarm system having a plurality of alarm notification devices and sensors within the building structure. The alarm system having a panel controller and communicates with a central station that is outside the building structure.); wherein the controller is further operably coupled through a communications network to a central station that is located outside the installation area and configured to, responsive to the alarm condition (see fig. 1, ¶ 0043-0050, 0054. The alarm system having a plurality of alarm notification devices and sensors within the building structure. The alarm system having a panel controller and communicates with a central station that is outside the building structure. The system communicates to the central station via telephone network which notifies first responders at the central station.).
Westmacott does not disclose wherein the plurality of devices comprises at least one client station and at least one other user device; initiate a conference involving the central station and the plurality of devices by simultaneously bridging the plurality of devices and the central station into the conference, thereby establishing 2-way voice communication between the central station and the plurality of devices; wherein the conference comprises the central station transmitting an inquiry simultaneously to the plurality of devices; and wherein the conference further comprises at least one of the plurality of devices receiving a user response to the inquiry and transmitting the user response to the central station.
Hansen teaches wherein the plurality of devices comprises at least one client station and at least one other user device; perform conference initiation operations that initiate a conference involving the central station and the plurality of devices, stablishing, subsequent to the conference initiation operations, 2-way voice communication between the central station and the plurality of devices (see fig .1-2, ¶ 0012, 0020, 0035. Upon an alarm condition occurring the controller which is arranged to contact a monitoring center (call center) the call center (central station) receives the alarm then automatically contacting all parties (location where the alarm is occurring) and emergency services. The control system receives an alarm event which connects plurality of users (devices) to emergency responder. This permits the emergency responder to communicating with users and other parties that are connected on the line, this places all parties in a 3 way call which is bidirectional.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Westmacott to incorporate automatic calls being implemented upon an emergency occurrence wherein an emergency call between emergency responders and plurality of users. The modification provides all parties in a communication session with emergency responder.
Sammon teaches initiate a conference involving the central station and the plurality of devices by simultaneously bridging the plurality of devices and the central station into the conference, thereby establishing 2-way voice communication between the central station and the plurality of devices (see fig. 3, ¶ 0032-0033. The conferencing server is able to simultaneously bridge and device in communication. The communication being conferencing in video and audio will inherently dictate that this system permits a two-way communication.).
The combination of Sammon to Westmacott and Hansen will teach a conferencing call communication system that enables simultaneously bridging devices in communication. This communication system being can be rendered in Westmacott and McNabb in combination.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Westmacott and Hansen to incorporate multi user conferencing system which connects one device to multiple devices via bridging simultaneously to all devices via the bridge. The modification provides multiple users in a communication session with that are bridged simultaneously.
Martin teaches wherein the conference comprises the central station transmitting an inquiry simultaneously to the plurality of devices; and wherein the conference further comprises at least one of the plurality of devices receiving a user response to the inquiry and transmitting the user response to the central station (see fig. 3, 4B-5B, ¶ 0149. An emergency system sends out an emergency message to users. The user then will respond to the message (see 5A-5B).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Westmacott, Hansen and Sammon to incorporate message being sent from emergency services to a plurality users and users responding to the message upon receiving the message. The modification provides communication request from emergency services to multiple users and responding to the request from the user.
6. Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McNabb et al. (US 2016/0049064) in further view of Sammon et al. (US 2014/0082100) in further view of Martin et al. (US 2019/0174289) in further of Sylvain (US 2010/0158232) in further view of Scoffier et al. (US 2016/0125318).
Regarding claim 9, McNabb teaches the method comprising: wherein the plurality of devices is distributed throughout an installation area and comprises at least one client station and at least one other user device; wherein the plurality of devices is distributed throughout an installation area and comprises at least one client station and at least one other user device (see fig. 1-2, ¶ 0017-0018, 0025-0026. The control system receives an alarm event which connects plurality of users (devices) to emergency responder (central station). This permits the emergency responder to communicating with users within the building of said alarm event.).
McNabb is vague on transmitting, from a security alarm controller, a message including an alarm event and a link to a central station; executing, at the central station, the link, wherein executing the link performs conference initiation operations to initiate a conference by simultaneously bridging the central station and a plurality of devices into the conference, thereby establishing, subsequent to the conference initiation operations, 2-way voice communication between the central station and the plurality of devices; wherein the conference comprises the central station transmitting an inquiry simultaneously to the plurality of devices; and wherein the conference further comprises at least one of the plurality of devices receiving a user response to the inquiry and transmitting the user response to the central station.
Sammon teaches initiate a conference by simultaneously bridging the central station and an plurality of devices into the conference, thereby establishing 2-way voice communication between the central station and the plurality of devices (see fig. 3, ¶ 0032-0033. The conferencing server is able to simultaneously bridge and device in communication. The communication being conferencing in video and audio will inherently dictate that this system permits a two-way communication.).
The combination of Sammon to McNabb will teach a conferencing call communication system that enables simultaneously bridging devices in communication. This communication system being can be rendered in McNabb in combination.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Westmacott and McNabb to incorporate multi user conferencing system which connects one device to multiple devices via bridging simultaneously to all devices via the bridge. The modification provides multiple users in a communication session with that are bridged simultaneously.
Martin teaches wherein the conference comprises the central station transmitting an inquiry simultaneously to the plurality of devices; and wherein the conference further comprises at least one of the plurality of devices receiving a user response to the inquiry and transmitting the user response to the central station (see fig. 3, 4B-5B, ¶ 0149. An emergency system sends out an emergency message to users. The user then will respond to the message (see 5A-5B).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McNabb and Delaney to incorporate message being sent from emergency services to a plurality users and users responding to the message upon receiving the message. The modification provides communication request from emergency services to multiple users and responding to the request from the user.
Sylvain teaches transmitting, from a security alarm controller, a message including an alarm event and a link to a central station (see fig. 1, ¶ 0024-0025, 0049. The conferencing server (central system) is trigged by an event in which a link is selected and a message being sent to the conferencing server in which the conferencing server will initiate a bridge between participants in a conferencing. The message provided includes a link.)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McNabb, Sammon, Martin to incorporate a conferencing bridge in which upon an event trigger provides a message and a link to initiate the conferencing bridge for participants. The modification provides bridging client devices in an event.
Scoffier executing the link, wherein executing the link performs conference initiation operations to initiate a conference; thereby establishing, subsequent to the conference initiation operations, 2-way voice communication (see 1, 10, ¶ 0100-0101. A message disclosing the alarmed incident and an emergency call link can be selected which will automatically dial emergency services and be connected to a user in a bidirectional communication.).
The combination of Scoffier to Sylvain provides for having a communication link (call link) which can be depressed and initiates communication with emergency services. The system of Sylvain with the implementation of Scoffier features in correlation with McNabb, Sammon and Martin to provide a communication link for emergency services during an alarmed incident.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McNabb, Sammon, Martin and Sylvain to incorporate executing the link, wherein executing the link performs conference initiation operations to initiate a conference; thereby establishing, subsequent to the conference initiation operations, 2-way voice communication. The modification provides selecting a link to connect to a emergency services.
7. Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Westmacott et al. (US 2018/0114430) in view of Hansen et al. (US 2007/0086578) in further view of Sammon et al. (US 2014/0082100) in further view of Martin et al. (US 2019/0174289).
Regarding claim 2, Westmacott, Sammon and Hansen do not teach the alarm system of claim 1, wherein the at least one client station includes a client station speaker, a client station microphone, and a client station controller, wherein each of the at least one client station is operable to be receive the user response and transmit the user response.
Martin teaches wherein the at least one client station includes a client station speaker, a client station microphone, and a client station controller, wherein each of the at least one client station is operable to be receive the user response and transmit the user response (see fig. 3, 4B-5B, ¶ 0149. An emergency system sends out an emergency message to users. The user then will respond to the message (see 5A-5B).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Westmacott, Sammon and Hansen to incorporate message being sent from emergency services to a plurality users and users responding to the message upon receiving the message. The modification provides communication request from emergency services to multiple users and responding to the request from the user.
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Westmacott et al. (US 2018/0114430) in view of Hansen et al. (US 2007/0086578) in further view of Sammon et al. (US 2014/0082100) in further view of Martin et al. (US 2019/0174289) further in view of McNabb et al. (US 2016/0049064).
Regarding claim 3, Westmacott, Hansen, Sammon and Martin do not teach the alarm system of claim 1, wherein the controller further comprises a display, a station speaker, a microphone, and is configured for communication.
McNabb teaches the alarm system of claim 1, wherein the controller further comprises a display, a station speaker, a microphone, and is configured for communication (see fig. 1-2. ¶ 0017-0018, 0025-0026. The alert system having a control system (central system) that is in communication with user or individual devices (client stations) and provide a two way communication between the emergency personal and users or individuals using or at those devices. The stations (device) have microphones, speakers and displays on the device.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Westmacott, Hansen, Sammon and Martin to incorporate multi user conferencing system which connects one device to multiple devices. The modification provides multiple users in a communication session with emergency responder.
8. Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Westmacott et al. (US 2018/0114430) in view of Hansen et al. (US 2007/0086578) in further view of Sammon et al. (US 2014/0082100) in further view of Martin et al. (US 2019/0174289) in further of Sylvain (US 2010/0158232).
Regarding claim 4, Westmacott, Hansen, Sammon and Martin do not teach the alarm system of claim 1, wherein the central station is configured to initiate the conference using a conference link.
Sylvain teaches wherein the central station is configured to initiate the conference using a conference link (see fig. 1, ¶ 0024-0025, 0049. The conferencing server (central system) is trigged by an event in which a link is selected and a message being sent to the conferencing server in which the conferencing server will initiate a bridge between participants in a conferencing. The message provided includes a link.)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Westmacott, Hansen, Sammon and Martin to incorporate a conferencing bridge in which upon an event trigger provides a message and a link to initiate the conferencing bridge for participants. The modification provides bridging client devices in an event.
9. Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Westmacott et al. (US 2018/0114430) in view of Hansen et al. (US 2007/0086578) in further view of Sammon et al. (US 2014/0082100) in further view of Martin et al. (US 2019/0174289) in further of Sylvain (US 2010/0158232) in further view of Nishide (US 2008/0240391).
Regarding claim 5, Westmacott, Hansen, Sammon, Martin and Sylvain do not teach the alarm system of claim 4, wherein the conference link is generated by a conference coordinator device.
Nishide teaches wherein the conference link is generated by a conference coordinator device (see ¶ 0084. The conferencing system would generate the link which is automatically don by the server (conferencing server).).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Westmacott, Hansen, Sammon, Martin and Sylvain to incorporate generating a conferencing link by the system. The modification provides the links for entering a conferencing session.
10. Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Westmacott et al. (US 2018/0114430) in view of Hansen et al. (US 2007/0086578) in further view of Sammon et al. (US 2014/0082100) in further view of Martin et al. (US 2019/0174289) in further of Tarr (US 2005/0242948).
Regarding claim 6, Westmacott, Hansen, Sammon, Martin do not teach the alarm system of claim 1, wherein the communications network comprises a TCP/IP network.
Tarr teaches t wherein the communications network comprises a TCP/IP network (see ¶ 0037. The TCP/IP network is incorporated into an alarm system.).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Westmacott, Hansen, Sammon, Martin to incorporate TCP/IP for an alarm system. The modification having a TCP network for alarm system communication.
11. Claim(s) 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Westmacott et al. (US 2018/0114430) in view of Hansen et al. (US 2007/0086578) in further view of Sammon et al. (US 2014/0082100) in further view of Martin et al. (US 2019/0174289) in further view of Martin (US 2016/0267773).
Regarding claim 7, Westmacott, Hansen, Sammon and Martin (289) do not teach the alarm system of claim 1, wherein the controller is further operably coupled to an authorized user device located outside the installation area and outside a location of the central station.
Martin (773) teaches wherein the controller is further operably coupled to an authorized user device located outside the installation area and outside a location of the central station (see fig. 1A, ¶ 0037. A user device outside of the installation and outside of the central station can control the alarm system.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Westmacott, Hansen, Sammon and Martin (289) to incorporate a device that is not located in a building or part of the central station. The modification provides communication to the alarm system via a remote device.
Regarding claim 8, Westmacott and Martin (289) do not teach the alarm system of claim 7, wherein: the conference initiation operations further comprise operations that central station is further configured to, responsive to the alarm condition, initiate the conference involving the central station and the plurality of devices by simultaneously bridging the plurality of devices, the central station, and the authorized user device into the conference, thereby establishing, subsequent to the conference initiation operations, 2-way voice communication among the central station, the plurality of devices, and the authorized user device; the conference further comprises the central station transmitting the inquiry simultaneously to the plurality of devices and the authorized user device; and the conference further comprises the authorized user device receiving an authorized user response to the inquiry and transmitting the authorized user response to the central station.
Martin (773) teaches wherein the central station is further configured to, responsive to the alarm condition and the conference further comprises the authorized user device receiving an authorized user response to the inquiry and transmitting the authorized user response to the central station (see fig. 3, 4B-5B, ¶ 0149. An emergency system sends out an emergency message to users. The user then will respond to the message (see 5A-5B). The users receiving the message are not located in the installation.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Westmacott and Martin (289) to incorporate message being sent from emergency services to a plurality users and users responding to the message upon receiving the message. The modification provides communication request from emergency services to multiple users and responding to the request from the user.
Sammon teaches initiate the conference involving the central station and the plurality of device by simultaneously bridging the plurality of devices, the central station, and the authorized user device into the conference thereby establishing 2-way voice communication among the central station, the plurality of devices, and the authorized user device (see fig. 3, ¶ 0032-0033. The conferencing server is able to simultaneously bridge and device in communication. The communication being conferencing in video and audio will inherently dictate that this system permits a two-way communication.).
The combination of Sammon to Westmacott and McNabb will teach a conferencing call communication system that enables simultaneously bridging devices in communication. This communication system being can be rendered in Westmacott and McNabb in combination.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Westmacott and Martin (289) to incorporate multi user conferencing system which connects one device to multiple devices via bridging simultaneously to all devices via the bridge. The modification provides multiple users in a communication session with that are bridged simultaneously.
Hansen teaches wherein: the conference initiation operations further comprise operations that central station is further configured to, responsive to the alarm condition, initiate the conference involving the central station and the authorized user device into the conference, thereby establishing, subsequent to the conference initiation operations, 2-way voice communication among the central station, the plurality of devices, and the authorized user device (see fig .1-2, ¶ 0012, 0020, 0035. Upon an alarm condition occurring the controller which is arranged to contact a monitoring center (call center) the call center (central station) receives the alarm then automatically contacting all parties (location where the alarm is occurring) and emergency services. The control system receives an alarm event which connects plurality of users (devices) to emergency responder. This permits the emergency responder to communicating with users and other parties that are connected on the line, this places all parties in a 3 way call which is bidirectional.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Westmacott and Martin (289) and Sammon to incorporate automatic calls being implemented upon an emergency occurrence wherein an emergency call between emergency responders and plurality of users. The modification provides all parties in a communication session with emergency responder.
12. Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McNabb et al. (US 2016/0049064) in further view of Sammon et al. (US 2014/0082100) in further view of Martin et al. (US 2019/0174289) in further of Sylvain (US 2010/0158232) in further view of Scoffier et al. (US 2016/0125318).
Regarding claim 10, McNabb, Sammon, Sylvain and Scoffier do not teach the method of claim 9, wherein the inquiry comprises a request that a user validate the alarm event; and the user response comprises a validation of the alarm event.
Martin teaches wherein the inquiry comprises a request that a user validate the alarm event; and the user response comprises a validation of the alarm event (see fig. 3, 4B-5B, ¶ 0149. An emergency system sends out an emergency message to users. The user then will respond to the message (see 5A-5B). The users receiving the message are not located in the installation.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McNabb, Sammon, Sylvain and Scoffier to incorporate message being sent from emergency services to a plurality users and users responding to the message upon receiving the message. The modification provides communication request from emergency services to multiple users and responding to the request from the user.
13. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McNabb et al. (US 2016/0049064) in further view of Sammon et al. (US 2014/0082100) in further view of Martin et al. (US 2019/0174289) in further of Sylvain (US 2010/0158232) in further view of Scoffier et al. (US 2016/0125318) in further view of Merjanian et al. (US 10,158,974).
Regarding claim 11, McNabb, Sammon, Martin, Sylvain and Scoffier do not teach the alarm system of claim 1, further comprising a conference coordinator device configured to generate the conference link and provide a conferencing service.
Merjanian teaches the alarm system of claim 1, further comprising a conference coordinator device configured to generate the conference link and provide a conferencing service (see fig. 30, col. 39, line 53-col. 40, line 42. Merjanian discloses a access link to a conferencing session for responders and users, thus the system provides an access link for an conference call between responders and users. The system provides the conferencing link, thus being a system having conferencing communication that permits user and responders to have two-way communication during an emergency.).
The combination of McNabb, Sammon, Martin, Sylvain and Scoffier and Merjanian provide for the access link to the responders and users which upon being in communication will provide an confirmation of the emergency event.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McNabb, Sammon, Martin, Sylvain and Scoffier to incorporate a access link to provide access to a conferencing communication between users and responders. The modification provides for the first responders to access the link and communicate with users at the event site.
14. Claims 12, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McNabb et al. (US 2016/0049064) in further view of Sammon et al. (US 2014/0082100) in further view of Martin et al. (US 2019/0174289) in further of Sylvain (US 2010/0158232) in further view of Scoffier et al. (US 2016/0125318) in further view of Tarr (US 2005/0242948).
Regarding claim 12, McNabb, Sammon, Martin, Sylvain and Scoffier do not teach the method of claim 9, wherein the message includes an identifier of the one or more sensors that detected the alarm event.
Tarr teaches wherein the message includes an identifier of the one or more sensors that detected the alarm event (see ¶ 0035-0036. The sensor data provides information regarding the issue (which could include identification of a sensor) to the remote services.).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McNabb, Sammon, Martin, Sylvain and Scoffier to incorporate sensor data to be sent to a remote services. The modification provides for information in regards to the issue occurring at the sensor location to be provided to emergency services.
Regarding claim 13, McNabb, Sammon, Martin, Sylvain and Scoffier do not teach the method of claim 9, wherein the message comprises video data of one or more sensors that detected the alarm event.
Tarr teaches wherein the message comprises video data of one or more sensors that detected the alarm event (see ¶ 0035-0036. The sensor data provides information regarding the issue which includes live video data being provided with the message being sent to the remote services.).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McNabb, Sammon, Martin, Sylvain and Scoffier to incorporate sensor data with video data being sent to a remote services. The modification provides for information in regards to the issue occurring at the sensor location to be provided to emergency services.
15. Claims 14, 15, 16, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McNabb et al. (US 2016/0049064) in further view of Sammon et al. (US 2014/0082100) in further view of Martin et al. (US 2019/0174289) in further of Sylvain (US 2010/0158232) in further view of Martin (US 2016/0267773) in further view of Scoffier et al. (US 2016/0125318) further in view of Hansen et al. (US 2007/0086578).
Regarding claim 14, McNabb, Sammon, Martin (289), Sylvain, Hansen and Scoffier do not teach the method of claim 9, wherein the security alarm controller is further operably coupled to an authorized user device located outside the installation area and outside a location of the central station.
Martin (773) teaches wherein the security alarm controller is further operably coupled to an authorized user device located outside the installation area and outside a location of the central station (see fig. 1A, ¶ 0037. A user device outside of the installation and outside of the central station can control the alarm system.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McNabb, Sammon, Martin (289), Sylvain, Hansen and Scoffier to incorporate a device that is not located in a building or part of the central station. The modification provides communication to the alarm system via a remote device.
Regarding claim 15, McNabb, Martin (773) and Scoffier do not teach the method of claim 14, wherein: the conference initiation operations further comprise operations that initiate the conference by simultaneously bridging the central station, the plurality of devices, and the authorized user device into the conference, thereby establishing, subsequent to the conference initiation operations, 2-way voice communication among the central station, the plurality of devices and authorized user device; the conference further comprises the central station transmitting the inquiry simultaneously to the plurality of devices and the authorized user device; and the conference further comprises the authorized user device receiving an authorized user response to the inquiry and transmitting the authorized user response to the central station.
Martin teaches the conference further comprises the central station transmitting the inquiry simultaneously to the plurality of devices and the authorized user device; and the conference further comprises the authorized user device receiving an authorized user response to the inquiry and transmitting the authorized user response to the central station (see fig. 3, 4B-5B, ¶ 0149. An emergency system sends out an emergency message to users. The user then will respond to the message (see 5A-5B). The users receiving the message are not located in the installation.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McNabb, Martin (773) and Scoffier to incorporate message being sent from emergency services to a plurality users and users responding to the message upon receiving the message. The modification provides communication request from emergency services to multiple users and responding to the request from the user.
Sammon teaches initiate the conference by simultaneously bridging the central station, the plurality of devices, and the authorized user device into the conference, thereby establishing 2-way voice communication among the central station, the plurality of devices and authorized user device (see fig. 3, ¶ 0032-0033. The conferencing server is able to simultaneously bridge and device in communication. The communication being conferencing in video and audio will inherently dictate that this system permits a two-way communication.).
The combination of Sammon to McNabb will teach a conferencing call communication system that enables simultaneously bridging devices in communication. This communication system being can be rendered in McNabb in combination.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McNabb and Martin (289) and Scoffier to incorporate multi user conferencing system which connects one device to multiple devices via bridging simultaneously to all devices via the bridge. The modification provides multiple users in a communication session with that are bridged simultaneously.
Hansen teaches wherein: the conference initiation operations further comprise operations that initiate the conference and the authorized user device into the conference, thereby establishing, subsequent to the conference initiation operations, 2-way voice communication among the central station, the plurality of devices and authorized user device (see fig .1-2, ¶ 0012, 0020, 0035. Upon an alarm condition occurring the controller which is arranged to contact a monitoring center (call center) the call center (central station) receives the alarm then automatically contacting all parties (location where the alarm is occurring) and emergency services. The control system receives an alarm event which connects plurality of users (devices) to emergency responder. This permits the emergency responder to communicating with users and other parties that are connected on the line, this places all parties in a 3 way call which is bidirectional.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McNabb, Sammon, Sylvain, Martin and Martin (773) and Scoffier to incorporate automatic calls being implemented upon an emergency occurrence wherein an emergency call between emergency responders and plurality of users. The modification provides all parties in a communication session with emergency responder.
Regarding claim 16, McNabb, Sammon, Hansen, Sylvain and Scoffier do not teach the method of claim 14, wherein the inquiry comprises a request that at least one of a plurality of users validates the alarm event; the plurality of users comprises a first user within the installation area and a second user within a communication range of the authorized user device; and the user response and the authorized user response comprise a validation of the alarm event.
Martin (289) teaches wherein the inquiry comprises a request that at least one of a plurality of users validates the alarm event; and the user response and the authorized user response comprise a validation of the alarm event (see fig. 3, 4B-5B, ¶ 0149. An emergency system sends out an emergency message to users. The user then will respond to the message (see 5A-5B). The users receiving the message are not located in the installation.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McNabb, Sammon, Hansen and Sylvain and Scoffier to incorporate message being sent from emergency services to a plurality users and users responding to the message upon receiving the message. The modification provides communication request from emergency services to multiple users and responding to the request from the user.
Martin (773) teaches the plurality of users comprises a first user within the installation area and a second user within a communication range of the authorized user device (see fig. 1A, ¶ 0037. A user device is inside the installation area and a second device (user) being in communication range.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McNabb, Sammon, Hansen, Sylvain, Martin (289) and Scoffier to incorporate a device that located inside the installation and another device that is in communication range for communication of the alarm system. The modification provides communication to the alarm system via a remote device.
Regarding claim 18, McNabb teaches the method of claim 14, wherein a central station operator communicates through the central station with the security alarm controller, the plurality of devices, and the authorized user device simultaneously. (see fig. 1-2. ¶ 0017-0018, 0025-0026. The alarm or alert system is able to communicate to multiple devices (client stations) in a two way communication in a building. The alert system having a control system (central system) that is in communication with user or individual devices (client stations) and provide a two way communication between the emergency personal and users or individuals using or at those devices. The dispatch can communication with the control system and client stations (devices) which are authorized users in order to provide real-time evacuations when in contact with the controller and users. ).
16. Claims 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McNabb et al. (US 2016/0049064) in view of Sammon et al. (US 2014/0082100) in further view of Martin et al. (US 2019/0174289) in further of Sylvain (US 2010/0158232) in further view of Martin (US 2016/0267773) in further view of Scoffier et al. (US 2016/0125318) further in view of Hansen et al. (US 2007/0086578)
in further view of Petricoin (US 2013/0141239).
Regarding claim 17, McNabb, Sammon, Martin (289), Sylvain, Martin (773), Scoffier and Hansen do not teach the method of claim 16, further comprising, responsive to validating the alarm event, dispatching resources to a location indicating the alarm event.
Petricoin teaches responsive to validating the alarm event, dispatching resources to a location indicating the alarm event (see ¶ 0042. Upon an alarm being provide to emergency services, the dispatcher can send proper authorities to the location of the alarm being provided.).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McNabb, Sammon, Martin (289), Sylvain, Martin (773), Scoffier and Hansen to incorporate sending emergency eservices to a location of the alarm alert. The modification providing information to dispatch proper emergency services to the alarm location.
17. Claims 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McNabb et al. (US 2016/0049064) in further view of Sammon et al. (US 2014/0082100) in further view of Martin et al. (US 2019/0174289) in further of Sylvain (US 2010/0158232) in further view of Scoffier et al. (US 2016/0125318) further in view of Hansen et al. (US 2007/0086578).
Regarding claim 19, McNabb teaches the method of claim 9, further comprising wirelessly communicating with one or more sensors and the plurality of devices (see fig. 1-2. ¶ 0017-0018, 0025-0026. The alarm or alert system is able to communicate to multiple devices (client stations) in a two way communication in a building. The alert system having a control system (central system) that is in communication with user or individual devices (client stations) and provide a two way communication between the emergency personal and users or individuals using or at those devices. The sensors and the client devices are connected wirelessly.).
Regarding claim 20, McNabb teaches the method of claim 9, further comprising wherein the security alarm controller and the plurality of devices communicate over an internal network of the installation area. (see fig. 1-2. ¶ 0017-0018, 0025-0026. The alarm or alert system is able to communicate to multiple devices (client stations) in a two way communication in a building. The alert system having a control system (central system) that is in communication with user or individual devices (client stations) and provide a two way communication between the emergency personal and users or individuals using or at those devices. The sensors and the client devices are connected wirelessly. The wireless communication can be Wi-Fi, personal area networks, short range networks.).
Conclusion
18. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASSAD MOHAMMED whose telephone number is (571)270-7253. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Duc Nguyen can be reached on 571-272-7503. 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.
/ASSAD MOHAMMED/Examiner, Art Unit 2691
/DUC NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2691
Prosecution Insights