DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the Request for Continuation filed on December 22, 2025 in application 17/443,427.
Claims 1-29 are presented for examination. Claims 1, 8, 15 and 22 are amended.
Terminal Disclaimer filed and approved on January 6, 2023 is acknowledged.
IDS submitted on July 3, 2023, September 18, 2023, November 20, 2023 and February 3, 2024 was acknowledged.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on December 24, 2025, October 27, 2025, August 7, 2025, May 5, 2025, February 14, 2025, October 29, 2024, June 25, 2024 and April 10, 2024 were in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements were considered by the Examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 22, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that in regard to the Decision on Appeal, the PTAB issued a new ground of rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 103 as being obvious over Dohrmann (US 2008/0117029) where the amendments claims are missing from Dorhmann.
Independent claim 1 have been amended to recite “initiating, by the server device and based on determining the change in the network status, a delay window”
Examiner disagreed. Dohrmann et al. et al. teach of the external device or system starting a timer in response to the detection of an alarm-triggering event (para. 255), based on the connection verification scheme not receiving a heartbeat and determines that the communication link is broken (fig. 7c, para. 272-265).
In regard to the 35 USC 101 rejection, the server device performs generic functionality. The courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)(ii)) for i) receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec, 838 F.3d) and ii) perform repetitive calculations … recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values (Flook, 437 U.S. at 594). Based on claims containing a server device performing generic functionality, the rejections are maintained.
For these reasons, Dohrmann et al. does teach the claimed limitations and therefore, the rejections are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites devices in communication, via a network connections, to determine the state of the premises management system, the state of the network and to send the states to a second device.
The limitation of determining the state of the premises management system and the state of the network, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by a server device,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by a server device” language, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses determining the states as being functional vs non-functional. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – by a server device. The network in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing a generic computer function of receiving and transmitting information, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic server device. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a server device amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic server device. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic device cannot provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)(ii)) for i) receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec, 838 F.3d) and ii) perform repetitive calculations … recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values (Flook, 437 U.S. at 594). Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dohrmann et al. (US 2008/0117029).
In regard to claim 1, Dohrmann et al. teach a method comprising:
determining, by a server device located external to a premises (the external device or system, para. 255), a change in a network status associated with the premises device (detection of an alarm-triggering event, para. 255);
initiating, by the server device and based on determining the change in the network status, a delay window (the external device or system then starts a timer, para. 255); and
sending, by the server device, to a computing device, via a network and based on expiration of the delay window, a message indicative of a status of the premises (if a disarm signal is not received from the alarm device prior to the expiration of the timer on the external device, the external device can initiate an external alarm sequence, para. 255).
Dohrmann et al. teach of receiving status/message/reports to determine a state change but Dohrmann et al. does not explicitly teach determining a change in a network status based on analyzing one or more network connections associated with a premises device located at the premises.
It would have been obvious to modify the analyzing of one or more network connection of Dohrmann et al. to include sending and receiving a connection verification +message because the verification message it is well known in the art for determining a network connection status from receiving various signals/reports (e.g. heartbeat, keepalive, ping, health check, watch dog, etc.,) to determine/analyze a disconnect in communication by a change in the network as a way to prevent a burglar from disconnecting or breaking a communication links to an external system (para. 250-264). Claim 5 also support this reasoning with further defining analyzing as being a heartbeat signal associated with the one or more network connections.
In regard to claim 2, Dohrmann et al. teach of determining change in the network status as a break in communications (para. 269) but Dohrmann et al. does not explicitly teach the method of claim 1, wherein analyzing the one or more network connections comprises determining one or more of a current communication mode associated with the premises device or a current communication channel associated with the premises device.
It would have been obvious to modify the analyzing of one or more network connection of Dohrmann et al. to include sending and receiving a connection verification message because the verification message it is well known in the art for determining a network connection status from receiving various signals/reports (e.g. heartbeat, keepalive, ping, health check, watch dog, etc.,) to determine/analyze a disconnect in communication by a change in the network as a way to prevent a burglar from disconnecting or breaking a communication links to an external system (para. 250-264), where even if the burglar has disable communication links 102f, the external alarm sequence is still initiated at step 726 (para. 262). Claim 5 also support this reasoning with further defining analyzing as being a heartbeat signal associated with the one or more network connections.
In regard to claim 3, Dohrmann et al. teach the method of claim 1, wherein determining the change in the network status comprises determining one or more of: a loss of connection of at least a portion of the one or more network connections, an inability to communicate with the premises device, or a switch from communicating via one of the one or more network connections to another of the one or more network connections (determining whether a break in communications have occurred by receiving the connection verification message or not, para. 267-269, fig. 7c).
In regard to claim 4, Dohrmann et al. teach of determining change in the network status as a break in communications (para. 269) but Dohrmann et al. does not explicitly teach the method of claim 1, wherein the change in the network status indicates a change from a primary communication channel to a secondary communication channel.
It would have been obvious to modify the analyzing of one or more network connection of Dohrmann et al. to include sending and receiving a connection verification message because the verification message it is well known in the art for determining a network connection status from receiving various signals/reports (e.g. heartbeat, keepalive, ping, health check, watch dog, etc.,) to determine/analyze a disconnect in communication by a change in the network as a way to prevent a burglar from disconnecting or breaking a communication links to an external system (para. 250-264), where even if the burglar has disable communication links 102f, the external alarm sequence is still initiated at step 726 (para. 262). Claim 5 also support this reasoning with further defining analyzing as being a heartbeat signal associated with the one or more network connections.
In regard to claim 5, Dohrmann et al. teach the method of claim 1, wherein analyzing the one or more network connections comprises monitoring the one or more network connections based on a heartbeat signal associated with the one or more network connections (external device can employed a connection verification scheme and can send the connection verification message multiple times over a predetermined period, fig. 7c, para. 265-272, a missing heartbeat determines that the communications link is broken, para. 272).
In regard to claim 6, Dohrmann et al. teach the method of claim 1, wherein determining the change in the network status comprises determining a loss in communication via at least a portion of the one or more network connections, and wherein the message indicates an alarm indicative of a smash and grab scenario (upon detection of an alarm-triggering event, the external device starts a timer and if a disarm signal is not received from the alarm device prior to the expiration of the timer, external alarm sequence is initiated. Even if a burglar were to disconnect the alarm device from the external device or otherwise disable the alarm device, the external alarm sequence can still be generated allowing the alarm event to be reported, para. 255, fig. 7 para. 256-264).
In regard to claim 7, Dohrmann et al. teach the method of claim 1, wherein the premises device comprises one or more of a security device, a gateway device, a touchscreen device, or an automation device (alarm devices, FES, of the alarm system, fig. 1, para. 75-78).
In regard to claim 8, Dohrmann et al. teach a device comprising:
one or more processors (implemented using one or more conventional general purpose computer system, para. 411); and
memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors (the computer system can also include a main memory, para. 412), cause the device to:
determine, external to a premises (the external device or system, para. 255), a change in a network status associated with the premises device (detection of an alarm-triggering event, para. 255);
initiate, based on determining the change in the network status, a delay window (the external device or system then starts a timer, para. 255); and
send, to a computing device via a network and based on expiration of the delay window, a message indicative of a status of the premises (if a disarm signal is not received from the alarm device prior to the expiration of the timer on the external device, the external device can initiate an external alarm sequence, para. 255).
Dohrmann et al. teach of receiving status/message/reports to determine a state change but Dohrmann et al. does not explicitly teach determining a change in network status based on analyzing one or more network connections associated with a premises device located at the premises.
It would have been obvious to modify the analyzing of one or more network connection of Dohrmann et al. to include sending and receiving a connection verification +message because the verification message it is well known in the art for determining a network connection status from receiving various signals/reports (e.g. heartbeat, keepalive, ping, health check, watch dog, etc.,) to determine/analyze a disconnect in communication by a change in the network as a way to prevent a burglar from disconnecting or breaking a communication links to an external system (para. 250-264). Claim 5 also support this reasoning with further defining analyzing as being a heartbeat signal associated with the one or more network connections.
In regard to claim 9, Dohrmann et al. teach of determining change in the network status as a break in communications (para. 269) but does not explicitly teach the device of claim 8, wherein the instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the device to analyze the one or more network connections comprises instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the device to determine one or more of a current communication mode associated with the premises device or a current communication channel associated with the premises device.
It would have been obvious to modify the analyzing of one or more network connection of Dohrmann et al. to include sending and receiving a connection verification message because the verification message it is well known in the art for determining a network connection status from receiving various signals/reports (e.g. heartbeat, keepalive, ping, health check, watch dog, etc.,) to determine/analyze a disconnect in communication by a change in the network as a way to prevent a burglar from disconnecting or breaking a communication links to an external system (para. 250-264), where even if the burglar has disable communication links 102f, the external alarm sequence is still initiated at step 726 (para. 262). Claim 5 also support this reasoning with further defining analyzing as being a heartbeat signal associated with the one or more network connections.
In regard to claim 10, Dohrmann et al. teach the device of claim 8, wherein the instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the device to determine the change in the network status comprises instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the device to determine one or more of: a loss of connection of at least a portion of the one or more network connections, an inability to communicate with the premises device, or a switch from communicating via one of the one or more network connections to another of the one or more network connections (determining whether a break in communications have occurred by receiving the connection verification message or not, para. 267-269, fig. 7c).
In regard to claim 11, Dohrmann et al. teach of determining change in the network status as a break in communications (para. 269) but does not explicitly teach the device of claim 8, wherein the change in the network status indicates a change from a primary communication channel to a secondary communication channel.
It would have been obvious to modify the analyzing of one or more network connection of Dohrmann et al. to include sending and receiving a connection verification message because the verification message it is well known in the art for determining a network connection status from receiving various signals/reports (e.g. heartbeat, keepalive, ping, health check, watch dog, etc.,) to determine/analyze a disconnect in communication by a change in the network as a way to prevent a burglar from disconnecting or breaking a communication links to an external system (para. 250-264), where even if the burglar has disable communication links 102f, the external alarm sequence is still initiated at step 726 (para. 262). Claim 5 also support this reasoning with further defining analyzing as being a heartbeat signal associated with the one or more network connections.
In regard to claim 12, Dohrmann et al. teach the device of claim 8, wherein the instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the device to analyze the one or more network connections comprises instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the device to monitor the one or more network connections based on a heartbeat signal associated with the one or more network connections (external device can employed a connection verification scheme and can send the connection verification message multiple times over a predetermined period, fig. 7c, para. 265-272, a missing heartbeat determines that the communications link is broken, para. 272).
In regard to claim 13, Dohrmann et al. teach the device of claim 8, wherein the instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the device to determine the change in the network status comprises instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the device to determine a loss in communication via at least a portion of the one or more network connections, and wherein the message indicates an alarm indicative of a smash and grab scenario (upon detection of an alarm-triggering event, the external device starts a timer and if a disarm signal is not received from the alarm device prior to the expiration of the timer, external alarm sequence is initiated. Even if a burglar were to disconnect the alarm device from the external device or otherwise disable the alarm device, the external alarm sequence can still be generated allowing the alarm event to be reported, para. 255, fig. 7 para. 256-264).
In regard to claim 14, Dohrmann et al. teach the device of claim 8, wherein the premises device comprises one or more of a security device, a gateway device, a touchscreen device, or an automation device (alarm devices, FES, of the alarm system, fig. 1, para. 75-78).
In regard to claim 15, Dohrmann et al. teach a system comprising:
a premises device located at a premises (alarm devices, FES, of the alarm system, fig. 1, para. 75-78): and
a server device located external to the premises (the external device or system, para. 255) and configured to:
determine, a change in a network status associated with the premises device (detection of an alarm-triggering event, para. 255);
initiate, based on determining the change in the network status, a delay window (the external device or system then starts a timer, para. 255); and
send, to a computing device via a network and based on expiration of the delay window, a message indicative of a status of the premises (if a disarm signal is not received from the alarm device prior to the expiration of the timer on the external device, the external device can initiate an external alarm sequence, para. 255).
Dohrmann et al. teach of receiving status/message/reports to determine a state change but Dohrmann et al. does not explicitly teach determining a change in network status based on analyzing one or more network connections associated with the premises device.
It would have been obvious to modify the analyzing of one or more network connection of Dohrmann et al. to include sending and receiving a connection verification +message because the verification message it is well known in the art for determining a network connection status from receiving various signals/reports (e.g. heartbeat, keepalive, ping, health check, watch dog, etc.,) to determine/analyze a disconnect in communication by a change in the network as a way to prevent a burglar from disconnecting or breaking a communication links to an external system (para. 250-264). Claim 5 also support this reasoning with further defining analyzing as being a heartbeat signal associated with the one or more network connections.
In regard to claim 16, Dohrmann et al. teach of determining change in the network status as a break in communications (para. 269) but does not explicitly teach the system of claim 15, wherein the server device is configured to analyze the one or more network connections by determining one or more of a current communication mode associated with the premises device or a current communication channel associated with the premises device.
It would have been obvious to modify the analyzing of one or more network connection of Dohrmann et al. to include sending and receiving a connection verification message because the verification message it is well known in the art for determining a network connection status from receiving various signals/reports (e.g. heartbeat, keepalive, ping, health check, watch dog, etc.,) to determine/analyze a disconnect in communication by a change in the network as a way to prevent a burglar from disconnecting or breaking a communication links to an external system (para. 250-264), where even if the burglar has disable communication links 102f, the external alarm sequence is still initiated at step 726 (para. 262). Claim 5 also support this reasoning with further defining analyzing as being a heartbeat signal associated with the one or more network connections.
In regard to claim 17, Dohrmann et al. teach the system of claim 15, wherein the server device is configured to determine the change in the network status by determining one or more of: a loss of connection of at least a portion of the one or more network connections, an inability to communicate with the premises device, or a switch from communicating via one of the one or more network connections to another of the one or more network connections (determining whether a break in communications have occurred by receiving the connection verification message or not, para. 267-269, fig. 7c).
In regard to claim 18, Dohrmann et al. teach of determining change in the network status as a break in communications (para. 269) but does not explicitly teach the system of claim 15, wherein the change in the network status indicates a change from a primary communication channel to a secondary communication channel.
It would have been obvious to modify the analyzing of one or more network connection of Dohrmann et al. to include sending and receiving a connection verification message because the verification message it is well known in the art for determining a network connection status from receiving various signals/reports (e.g. heartbeat, keepalive, ping, health check, watch dog, etc.,) to determine/analyze a disconnect in communication by a change in the network as a way to prevent a burglar from disconnecting or breaking a communication links to an external system (para. 250-264), where even if the burglar has disable communication links 102f, the external alarm sequence is still initiated at step 726 (para. 262). Claim 5 also support this reasoning with further defining analyzing as being a heartbeat signal associated with the one or more network connections.
In regard to claim 19, Dohrmann et al. teach the system of claim 15, wherein the server device is configured to analyze the one or more network connections by monitoring the one or more network connections based on a heartbeat signal associated with the one or more network connections (external device can employed a connection verification scheme and can send the connection verification message multiple times over a predetermined period, fig. 7c, para. 265-272, a missing heartbeat determines that the communications link is broken, para. 272).
In regard to claim 20, Dohrmann et al. teach the system of claim 15, wherein the server device is configured to determine the change in the network status by determining a loss in communication via at least a portion of the one or more network connections, and wherein the message indicates an alarm indicative of a smash and grab scenario (upon detection of an alarm-triggering event, the external device starts a timer and if a disarm signal is not received from the alarm device prior to the expiration of the timer, external alarm sequence is initiated. Even if a burglar were to disconnect the alarm device from the external device or otherwise disable the alarm device, the external alarm sequence can still be generated allowing the alarm event to be reported, para. 255, fig. 7 para. 256-264).
In regard to claim 21, Dohrmann et al. teach the system of claim 15, wherein the premises device comprises one or more of a security device, a gateway device, a touchscreen device, or an automation device (alarm devices, FES, of the alarm system, fig. 1, para. 75-78).
In regard to claim 22, Dohrmann et al. teach a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer- executable instructions that, when executed, cause:
determining, by a server device located external to a premises (the external device or system, para. 255), a change in a network status associated with the premises device (detection of an alarm-triggering event, para. 255);
initiating, by the server device and based on determining the change in the network status, a delay window (the external device or system then starts a timer, para. 255); and
sending, by the server device, to a computing device, via a network and based on expiration of the delay window, a message indicative of a status of the premises (if a disarm signal is not received from the alarm device prior to the expiration of the timer on the external device, the external device can initiate an external alarm sequence, para. 255).
Dohrmann et al. teach of receiving status/message/reports to determine a state change but Dohrmann et al. does not explicitly teach determining a change in a network status based on analyzing one or more network connections associated with a premises device located at the premises.
It would have been obvious to modify the analyzing of one or more network connection of Dohrmann et al. to include sending and receiving a connection verification +message because the verification message it is well known in the art for determining a network connection status from receiving various signals/reports (e.g. heartbeat, keepalive, ping, health check, watch dog, etc.,) to determine/analyze a disconnect in communication by a change in the network as a way to prevent a burglar from disconnecting or breaking a communication links to an external system (para. 250-264). Claim 5 also support this reasoning with further defining analyzing as being a heartbeat signal associated with the one or more network connections.
In regard to claim 23, Dohrmann et al. teach of determining change in the network status as a break in communications (para. 269) but does not explicitly teach the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 22, wherein analyzing the one or more network connections comprises determining one or more of a current communication mode associated with the premises device or a current communication channel associated with the premises device.
It would have been obvious to modify the analyzing of one or more network connection of Dohrmann et al. to include sending and receiving a connection verification message because the verification message it is well known in the art for determining a network connection status from receiving various signals/reports (e.g. heartbeat, keepalive, ping, health check, watch dog, etc.,) to determine/analyze a disconnect in communication by a change in the network as a way to prevent a burglar from disconnecting or breaking a communication links to an external system (para. 250-264), where even if the burglar has disable communication links 102f, the external alarm sequence is still initiated at step 726 (para. 262). Claim 5 also support this reasoning with further defining analyzing as being a heartbeat signal associated with the one or more network connections.
In regard to claim 24, Dohrmann et al. teach the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 22, wherein determining the change in the network status comprises determining one or more of: a loss of connection of at least the portion of the one or more network connections, an inability to communicate with the premises device, or a switch from communicating via one of the one or more network connections to another of the one or more network connections (determining whether a break in communications have occurred by receiving the connection verification message or not, para. 267-269, fig. 7c).
In regard to claim 25, Dohrmann et al. teach of determining change in the network status as a break in communications (para. 269) but does not explicitly teach the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 22, wherein the change in the network status indicates a change from a primary communication channel to a secondary communication channel.
It would have been obvious to modify the analyzing of one or more network connection of Dohrmann et al. to include sending and receiving a connection verification message because the verification message it is well known in the art for determining a network connection status from receiving various signals/reports (e.g. heartbeat, keepalive, ping, health check, watch dog, etc.,) to determine/analyze a disconnect in communication by a change in the network as a way to prevent a burglar from disconnecting or breaking a communication links to an external system (para. 250-264), where even if the burglar has disable communication links 102f, the external alarm sequence is still initiated at step 726 (para. 262). Claim 5 also support this reasoning with further defining analyzing as being a heartbeat signal associated with the one or more network connections.
In regard to claim 26, Dohrmann et al. teach the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 22, wherein analyzing the one or more network connections comprises monitoring the one or more network connections based on a heartbeat signal associated with the one or more network connections (external device can employed a connection verification scheme and can send the connection verification message multiple times over a predetermined period, fig. 7c, para. 265-272, a missing heartbeat determines that the communications link is broken, para. 272).
In regard to claim 27, Dohrmann et al. teach the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 22, wherein determining the change in the network status comprises determining a loss in communication via at least a portion of the one or more network connections, and wherein the message indicates an alarm indicative of a smash and grab scenario (upon detection of an alarm-triggering event, the external device starts a timer and if a disarm signal is not received from the alarm device prior to the expiration of the timer, external alarm sequence is initiated. Even if a burglar were to disconnect the alarm device from the external device or otherwise disable the alarm device, the external alarm sequence can still be generated allowing the alarm event to be reported, para. 255, fig. 7 para. 256-264).
In regard to claim 28, Dohrmann et al. teach the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 22, wherein the premises device comprises one or more of a security device, a gateway device, a touchscreen device, or an automation device (alarm devices, FES, of the alarm system, fig. 1, para. 75-78).
In regard to claim 29, Dohrmann et al. teach of determining change in the network status as a break in communications (para. 269) but does not explicitly teach the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more network connections comprise one or more network connections over a network between the server device and the premises device.
It would have been obvious to modify the analyzing of one or more network connection of Dohrmann et al. to include sending and receiving a connection verification message because the verification message it is well known in the art for determining a network connection status from receiving various signals/reports (e.g. heartbeat, keepalive, ping, health check, watch dog, etc.,) to determine/analyze a disconnect in communication by a change in the network as a way to prevent a burglar from disconnecting or breaking a communication links to an external system (para. 250-264), where even if the burglar has disable communication links 102f, the external alarm sequence is still initiated at step 726 (para. 262). Claim 5 also support this reasoning with further defining analyzing as being a heartbeat signal associated with the one or more network connections.
***********************************************
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO 892.
Raji et al. (US 2008/0180240) alarm notification by exception
Jackson (US 2007/0262857) remotely-verified alarm system with intrusion
***
Naitou (US 2003/0174051) burglar alarm with timer
Oyagi et al. (US 2002/0126009) security system
Chen et al. (US 2004/0204806) active rescue-asking alarm system
Nou (US 2006/0122774) reporting vehicle theft with a GPS and vehicle diagnostic unit
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOAN TRUONG whose telephone number is 408-918-7552. The examiner can normally be reached on 10AM-6PM PST 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, Thomas Ashish can be reached on 571-272-0631. 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.
/Loan L.T. Truong/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2114
Loan.truong@uspto.gov
HYPERLINK "mailto:Loan.truong@uspto.gov"