DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to applicants’ remarks filed on June 24, 2026, in
in application 17/443,427.
Claims 1-29 are presented for examination.
Terminal Disclaimer filed and approved on January 6, 2023 is acknowledged for Patents 8,635,499, 10,275,999, and 11,129,084.
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, 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 July 21, 2026 and April 13, 2026 on were in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements were considered by the Examiner.
Response to Arguments
In regard to the 35 USC 103, applicant stated that the portion of Dohrmann do not teach or suggest “determining … a change in a network status associated with the premises device” as recited in claim 1. Applicant further stated that PTAB previously rejected Dohrmann paragraph 255 to the mention feature of claim 1. Secondly, applicant stated that Dohrmann does not teach “initiating, by the server device and based on determining the change in the network status, a delay window”.
Examiner disagreed. Applicants are advised to read the reference, as a whole, with emphasis on cited portions. Furthermore, PTAB decision provided new grounds of rejections under 35USC 103 as obvious over the teaching of Dohrmann. Examiner has further amended the citation similar to the PTAB decision and also equated it to applicant’s specification to provide more clarification for applicants.
Refer below for further details.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-19, 21-26, 28-29 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 4-5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,665,617.
Claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-19, 21-26, 28-29 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 44, 47-48 of U.S. Patent No. 11,284,331.
Claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-19, 21-26, 28-29 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 of U.S. Patent No. 11,601,865.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scopes of the claims are broader but otherwise recite similar limitations.
Current App. 17/443427
Patent 11,665,617 (17/650,324)
Patent 11,284,331 (14/159,739)
Patent 11,601,865 (16/356,742)
Claim 1
A method comprising: determining, by a server device located external to a premises and based on analyzing one or more network connections associated with a premises device located at the premises, a change in a network status associated with the premises device;
initiating, by the server device and based on determining the change in the network status, a delay window; 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.
Claim 1, 5-6
A method comprising:
determining, by a first device and based on data received from a premises management system, a state of the premises management system;
determining a state of a network connection between the first device and the premises management system; and
(refer to claim 6 for delay window)
sending, to a second device and based on the state of the premises management system and state of the network connection, an indication of the state of the premises management system. (refer to claim 5 for expiration of the delay window)
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the sending the indication of the state of the premises management system is based on an expiration of a pre-defined delay time period.
6. The method of claim 5, wherein the pre-defined delay time period commences based on receipt of the data from the premises management system.
Claim 44, 48
A method comprising: receiving, by a first device in communication with a premises management system, data, wherein the premises management system is located at a premises and the first device is located external to the premises, and wherein the first device is in communication, via a network connection, with the premises management system;
determining, based on the data, a state of the premises management system;
determining a state of the network connection; and
sending, to a second device and based on the state of the premises management system and the state of the network connection, an indication of the state of the premises management system.
(refer to claim 48 for expiration of delay time period)
Claim 48
The method of claim 44, wherein the sending the indication of the state of the premises management system is based on an expiration of a pre-defined delay time period.
Claim 1
A method comprising: receiving, by a first computing device and from a premises device, state information indicative of a state of the premises device;
determining a loss of communication between the premises device and the first computing device;
determining that sensor event information was received prior to the determining the loss of communication; and
based on the receiving the state information, the determining the loss of communication and that sensor event information was received prior to the determining the loss of communication, and determining that an elapsed time (this is equated to the delay timer) from the determining the loss of communication between the premises device and the first computing device satisfies a threshold duration, (this is equated to expiration of the delay window)
sending, to a second computing device located remotely from the first computing device, an indication of the state information.
Claim 2
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.
Claim 4
The method of claim 1, wherein the state of the network connection is indicative of a communication interruption in the network connection.
Claim 47
The method of claim 44, wherein the state of the network connection is indicative of a communication interruption in the network connection.
Claim 1
determining a loss of communication between the premises device and the first computing device;
(current communication mode is equated to none when there is a loss of communication)
Claim 3
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.
Claim 4
The method of claim 1, wherein the state of the network connection is indicative of a communication interruption in the network connection.
Claim 47
The method of claim 44, wherein the state of the network connection is indicative of a communication interruption in the network connection.
Claim 1
determining a loss of communication between the premises device and the first computing device;
Claim 4
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.
Claim 1
determining a state of a network connection between the first device and the premises management system; and sending, to a second device and based on the state of the premises management system and the state of the network connection
Claim 44
wherein the first device is in communication, via a network connection, with the premises management system; determining, based on the data, a state of the premises management system; determining a state of the network connection; and sending, to a second device and based on the state of the premises management system and the state of the network connection
Claim 1
determining a loss of communication between the premises device and the first computing device … sending, to a second computing device located remotely from the first computing device, an indication of the state information.
Claim 5
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.
Claim 5
The method of claim 1, wherein the sending the indication of the state of the premises management system is based on an expiration of a pre-defined delay time period.
(this acts exactly like a heartbeat signal)
Claim 48
The method of claim 44, wherein the sending the indication of the state of the premises management system is based on an expiration of a pre-defined delay time period.
Claim 1
determining that an elapsed time from the determining the loss of communication between the premises device and the first computing device satisfies a threshold duration
Claim 6
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.
Claim 7
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.
Claim 2
The method of claim 1, wherein the data is indicative of a state of at least one premises device of the premises management system.
(premises management system is equated to the premises device which consist of one or more of a security device)
Claim 44
receiving, by a first device in communication with a premises management system, data, wherein the premises management system is located at a premises
(premises management system is equated to the premises device which consist of one or more of a security device)
Claim 2
The method of claim 1, wherein the premises device comprises at least one of an alarm or a sensor.
Claim 8
Claim 1, 5-6
Claim 44, 48
Claim 1
Claim 9
Claim 4
Claim 47
Claim 1
Claim 10
Claim 4
Claim 47
Claim 1
Claim 11
Claim 1
Claim 44
Claim 1
Claim 12
Claim 5
Claim 48
Claim 1
Claim 13
Claim 14
Claim 2
Claim 44
Claim 2
Claim 15
Claim 1, 5-6
Claim 44, 48
Claim 1
Claim 16
Claim 4
Claim 47
Claim 1
Claim 17
Claim 4
Claim 47
Claim 1
Claim 18
Claim 1
Claim 44
Claim 1
Claim 19
Claim 5
Claim 48
Claim 1
Claim 20
Claim 21
Claim 2
Claim 44
Claim 2
Claim 22
Claim 1, 5-6
Claim 44, 48
Claim 1
Claim 23
Claim 4
Claim 47
Claim 1
Claim 24
Claim 4
Claim 47
Claim 1
Claim 25
Claim 1
Claim 44
Claim 1
Claim 26
Claim 5
Claim 48
Claim 1
Claim 27
Claim 28
Claim 2
Claim 44
Claim 2
Claim 29
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.
Claim 1
determining a state of a network connection between the first device and the premises management system;
Claim 44
wherein the first device is in communication, via a network connection, with the premises management system
Claim 1
receiving, by a first computing device and from a premises device, state information indicative of a state of the premises device; determining a loss of communication between the premises device and the first computing device
It is noted that the other claim sets recited similar limitations as the first claim set and therefore would be rejected similarly.
"A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obviousness type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus). "ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001).
This is a nonstatutory obviousness double patenting rejection.
*************
Claim 1-3, 7-10, 14-17, 21-24, 28-29 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 7-8 of copending Application No. 18/301/923.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scopes of the claims are broader but otherwise recite similar limitations.
Current App. 17/443427
Current App. 18/301,923
Claim 1
A method comprising:
determining, by a server device located external to a premises and based on analyzing one or more network connections associated with a premises device located at the premises, a change in a network status associated with the premises device;
initiating, by the server device and based on determining the change in the network status, a delay window; 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.
Claim 1
A method comprising: based on receiving data indicating a state of a premises management system, causing, by a first device,
initiation of a delay timer;
determining a communication interruption in a network connection (this is equate to a change in a network status) between the first device and the premises management system; and
based on the communication interruption and expiration of the delay timer, sending, to a second device, an indication of the state of the premises management system.
Claim 2
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.
Claim 8
The method of claim 1, wherein the communication interruption in the network connection comprises a loss of the network connection.
Claim 3
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.
Claim 8
The method of claim 1, wherein the communication interruption in the network connection comprises a loss of the network connection.
Claim 4
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.
Claim 5
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.
Claim 6
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.
Claim 7
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.
Claim 7
The method of claim 1, wherein the state of the premises management system comprises an event detected by the premises management system.
Claim 8
Claim 1
Claim 9
Claim 8
Claim 10
Claim 8
Claim 11
Claim 12
Claim 13
Claim 14
Claim 7
Claim 15
Claim 1
Claim 16
Claim 8
Claim 17
Claim 8
Claim 18
Claim 19
Claim 20
Claim 21
Claim 7
Claim 22
Claim 1
Claim 23
Claim 8
Claim 24
Claim 8
Claim 25
Claim 26
Claim 27
Claim 28
Claim 7
Claim 29
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.
Claim 1
determining a communication interruption in a network connection between the first device and the premises management system; and based on the communication interruption and expiration of the delay timer, sending, to a second device, an indication of the state of the premises management system.
It is noted that the other claim sets recited similar limitations as the first claim set and therefore would be rejected similarly.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 and based on analyzing one or more network connections associated with a premises device located at the premises (a burglar disable the communication, para. 265 is equated to applicant’s specification of a smash and grab scenario, para. 41), a change in a network status associated with the premises device (determine a break in communications, para. 265, 269-272, fig. 7c, 738);
initiating, by the server device and based on determining the change in the network status, a delay window (sends connection verification message with a predetermined period to rule out temporary or transient problems, para. 266-267, 270, fig. 7c, 730-738, applicant’s specification discloses the server can further be configured with a delay window that results in the server waiting to report an alarm, para. 42); 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 (initiating the disconnected alarm sequence, para 269, 271-272).
Dohrmann’s “waiting a predetermined period of time after sending the connection verification message” before determining that a break in communication has occurred, teach the determining steps. Any modifications of Dohrmann’s discloser might be necessary in order for Dohnrmann to teach or suggest the methods of claim 1, the factual findings regarding the Dohrmann’s (and the Specification’s) disclosures regarding the desirability of continuous monitoring of network connections and industry best practice regarding delay windows are sufficient reason for an ordinary skilled artisan to have made such modifications. Dohrmann (para. 269, 272); see Spec. (para. 6, Background of the Inventions), Spec. (para. 42). SIBIA Neurosciences, Inc, v. Cadus Pharm. Corp., 225 F.3d 1349, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
In regard to claim 2, Dohrmann et al. teach of the method of claim 1, wherein analyzing the one or more network connections comprises determining (determine a break in communications, para. 265, 269-272, fig. 7c, 738) one or more of a current communication mode associated with the premises device or a current communication channel associated with the premises device (a burglar may disable the communication, para. 265 is equated to applicant’s specification of a smash and grab scenario, para. 41).
Refer to claim 1 for motivational statement.
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. 265, 267-272, fig. 7c).
Refer to claim 1 for motivational statement.
In regard to claim 4, Dohrmann et al. teach the method of claim 1, wherein the change in the network status indicates a change from a primary communication channel (determine a break in communications, para. 265, 269-272, fig. 7c, 738) to a secondary communication channel (when the connection verification message has not been received by the external device, a break in communications is determined ... attempting to contact the user via phone, email, facsimile, pager, ect., para. 269).
Refer to claim 1 for motivational statement.
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).
Refer to claim 1 for motivational statement.
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).
Refer to claim 1 for motivational statement.
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 and based on analyzing one or more network connections associated with a premises device located at the premises (a burglar disable the communication, para. 265 is equated to applicant’s specification of a smash and grab scenario, para. 41), a change in a network status associated with the premises device (determine a break in communications, para. 265, 269-272, fig. 7c, 738);
initiate, based on determining the change in the network status, a delay window (sends connection verification message with a predetermined period to rule out temporary or transient problems, para. 266-267, 270, fig. 7c, 730-738, applicant’s specification discloses the server can further be configured with a delay window that results in the server waiting to report an alarm, para. 42); 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 (initiating the disconnected alarm sequence, para 269, 271-272).
Refer to claim 1 for motivational statement.
In regard to claim 9, 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 determine (determine a break in communications, para. 265, 269-272, fig. 7c, 738) one or more of a current communication mode associated with the premises device or a current communication channel associated with the premises device (a burglar may disable the communication, para. 265 is equated to applicant’s specification of a smash and grab scenario, para. 41).
Refer to claim 1 for motivational statement.
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. 265, 267-272, fig. 7c).
Refer to claim 1 for motivational statement.
In regard to claim 11, Dohrmann et al. teach the device of claim 8, wherein the change in the network status indicates a change from a primary communication channel (determine a break in communications, para. 265, 269-272, fig. 7c, 738) to a secondary communication channel (when the connection verification message has not been received by the external device, a break in communications is determined ... attempting to contact the user via phone, email, facsimile, pager, ect., para. 269).
Refer to claim 1 for motivational statement.
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).
Refer to claim 1 for motivational statement.
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).
Refer to claim 1 for motivational statement.
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, based on analyzing one or more network connections associated with a premises device located at the premises (a burglar disable the communication, para. 265 is equated to applicant’s specification of a smash and grab scenario, para. 41), a change in a network status associated with the premises device (determine a break in communications, para. 265, 269-272, fig. 7c, 738);
initiate, based on determining the change in the network status, a delay window (sends connection verification message with a predetermined period to rule out temporary or transient problems, para. 266-267, 270, fig. 7c, 730-738, applicant’s specification discloses the server can further be configured with a delay window that results in the server waiting to report an alarm, para. 42); 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 (initiating the disconnected alarm sequence, para 269, 271-272).
Refer to claim 1 for motivational statement.
In regard to claim 16, Dohrmann et al. teach the system of claim 15, wherein the server device is configured to analyze the one or more network connections by determining (determine a break in communications, para. 265, 269-272, fig. 7c, 738) one or more of a current communication mode associated with the premises device or a current communication channel associated with the premises device (a burglar may disable the communication, para. 265 is equated to applicant’s specification of a smash and grab scenario, para. 41).
Refer to claim 1 for motivational statement.
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 (determining whether a break in communications have occurred by receiving the connection verification message or not, para. 265, 267-272, fig. 7c).
Refer to claim 1 for motivational statement.
In regard to claim 18, Dohrmann et al. teach the system of claim 15, wherein the change in the network status indicates a change from a primary communication channel (determine a break in communications, para. 265, 269-272, fig. 7c, 738) to a secondary communication channel (when the connection verification message has not been received by the external device, a break in communications is determined ... attempting to contact the user via phone, email, facsimile, pager, ect., para. 269).
Refer to claim 1 for motivational statement.
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).
Refer to claim 1 for motivational statement.
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).
Refer to claim 1 for motivational statement.
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 based on analyzing one or more network connections associated with a premises device located at the premises (a burglar disable the communication, para. 265 is equated to applicant’s specification of a smash and grab scenario, para. 41), a change in a network status associated with the premises device (determine a break in communications, para. 265, 269-272, fig. 7c, 738);
initiating, by the server device and based on determining the change in the network status, a delay window (sends connection verification message with a predetermined period to rule out temporary or transient problems, para. 266-267, 270, fig. 7c, 730-738, applicant’s specification discloses the server can further be configured with a delay window that results in the server waiting to report an alarm, para. 42); 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 (initiating the disconnected alarm sequence, para 269, 271-272).
Refer to claim 1 for motivational statement.
In regard to claim 23, Dohrmann et al. teach the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 22, wherein analyzing the one or more network connections comprises determining (determine a break in communications, para. 265, 269-272, fig. 7c, 738) one or more of a current communication mode associated with the premises device or a current communication channel associated with the premises device (a burglar may disable the communication, para. 265 is equated to applicant’s specification of a smash and grab scenario, para. 41).
Refer to claim 1 for motivational statement.
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. 265, 267-272, fig. 7c).
Refer to claim 1 for motivational statement.
In regard to claim 25, Dohrmann et al. 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 (determine a break in communications, para. 265, 269-272, fig. 7c, 738) to a secondary communication channel (when the connection verification message has not been received by the external device, a break in communications is determined ... attempting to contact the user via phone, email, facsimile, pager, ect., para. 269).
Refer to claim 1 for motivational statement.
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).
Refer to claim 1 for motivational statement.
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).
Refer to claim 1 for motivational statement.
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 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 (communications link 102f may include a broadband connection, a modem connection, a cellular phone connection, etc. … or over communications network 108, fig. 1, para. 75-78).
*******************************
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO 892.
Stluka et al. (US 2010/0211192) analysis of alarm data
Siwak et al. (US 10,438,478) intrusion detection
Fu et al. (US 12,462,657) intruder monitoring
Shafer et al. (US 2011/0068906) monitoring devices
Havekost et al. (US 6,774,786) alarm processing unit
***
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, Ashish Thomas 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 HYPERLINK "mailto:Loan.truong@uspto.gov" Loan.truong@uspto.gov
Prosecution Insights