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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The present office action is responsive to communications received on 07/18/2025.
Status of Claims
Claims 3, 8, 12-14 and 17-19 were canceled.
Claims 1, 4-5, 10-11, 15-16 and 20 were amended.
Claims 21-23 are new.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-11, 15-16 and 20 are pending.
Response to arguments
In light of applicant amendments, the 101 rejection is withdrawn.
With respect to the 103 rejection, new prior art was found that discloses most of the independent claim language and remedies any deficiencies of Lee, which is now being used as a secondary reference.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 11 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gopalakrishna (US 20180211458 A1) hereinafter referred to as Gopalakrishna.
With respect to claim 11, Gopalakrishna discloses: A method of changing a security level of a physical security system, the physical security system including a plurality of physical security system components, each of at least some of the plurality of physical security system components providing security data pertaining to the respective physical security system component, the physical security system having an armed state and a disarmed state, the method comprising: (Gopalakrishna ¶4 summarizes a security access control system to detect event triggers of at least one device the system can collect over time card swipes and a door held open of the security system components and can flag or deactivate a card which is interpreted as a change in security level from allowed access to not allowed access).
collecting over time historical security data from each of the at least some of the plurality of physical security system components; (Gopalakrishna ¶4 summarizes the system can collect over time card swipes a door help open of the security system components).
using artificial intelligence to learn historical patterns within the historical security data, the historical patterns defining expected values for the security data; (Gopalakrishna ¶4 summarizes “a special card is swiped an identified number of times within an identified period of time, such as three valid card swipes within five seconds on a perimeter door of a facility or five valid card swipes within thirty seconds on an interior door of the facility, a stakeholder may want to arm or disarm the facility accordingly.”)
receiving live security data from at least some of the plurality of physical security system components; (Gopalakrishna ¶4 teaches receiving/obtaining the card swipes or how long the door is being help open which are live security event occupants of a facility).
comparing the live security data with the learned historical patterns to detect situations in which the live security data differ from the expected values learned from the historical security data by more than a threshold amount of time; (Gopalakrishna, in addition to ¶4, also ¶14 explains in more details comparing the patterns with an expected threshold amount of time and whether it is exceeded or not).
when the live security data differ from the expected values learned from the historical security data by more than a threshold amount of time, automatically changing one or more static configuration setting of the physical security system that remain static during normal operation of the physical security system, including: (Gopalakrishna ¶4 summarizes “a stakeholder may want to more closely monitor the high security zone. When a card [of a particular individual occupant of the system] is used beyond [threshold amount of time] an identified number of times within an identified period of time, a stakeholder may want to restrict or flag the card [determining a recommended change to one or more user-specific static configuration settings]” wherein the settings to restrict or flag the cards remains during operation until an investigation is complete as disclosed by the paragraph).
a transient duration setting that represents a duration that must occur between successive card swipes; (Gopalakrishna ¶4 summarizes “When a special card is swiped an identified number of times within an identified period of time, such as three valid card swipes within five seconds on a perimeter door of a facility or five valid card swipes within thirty seconds on an interior door of the facility, a stakeholder may want to arm or disarm the facility accordingly.”).
and operating the physical security system using the changed one or more static configuration setting of the physical security system. (Gopalakrishna ¶4 summarizes that the new state of flagged or deactivated card remains effective).
With respect to claim 22, Gopalakrishna discloses: The method of claim 11, wherein the one or more user-specific static configuration settings include a transient duration setting that represents a duration that must occur between successive card swipes. (Gopalakrishna ¶4 summarizes “When a special card is swiped an identified number of times within an identified period of time, such as three valid card swipes within five seconds on a perimeter door of a facility or five valid card swipes within thirty seconds on an interior door of the facility, a stakeholder may want to arm or disarm the facility accordingly.”).
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 9-10, 16, 20-21 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gopalakrishna (US 20180211458 A1) hereinafter referred to as Gopalakrishna in view of Lee et al. (US 20160189528 A1) hereinafter referred to as Lee in view of Porto Guedes et al. (US 20230117225 A1) hereinafter referred to as Porto.
With respect to claim 1, Gopalakrishna discloses: A method of improving operation of a physical security system for a facility, the security system including a plurality of physical security system components, each of at least some of the plurality of physical security system components providing security data pertaining to the respective physical security system component, the method comprising: (Gopalakrishna Abstract teaches a security access control system to detect event triggers of at least one device).
collecting over time the security data from each of the at least some of the plurality of physical security system components; (Gopalakrishna ¶4 summarizes the system can collect over time card swipes, and a door held open beyond a threshold duration, of the security system components).
identifying a pattern based at least in part on the collected security data, the pattern identifying an expected behavior of one or more occupants of the facility; (Gopalakrishna ¶4 summarizes “a special card is swiped an identified number of times within an identified period of time, such as three valid card swipes within five seconds on a perimeter door of a facility or five valid card swipes within thirty seconds on an interior door of the facility, a stakeholder may want to arm or disarm the facility accordingly.”)
receiving live security data from at least some of the plurality of physical security system components, the live security data representing a current behavior of one or more occupants of the facility; (Gopalakrishna ¶4 teaches receiving/obtaining the card swipes or how long the door is being help open which are live security event occupants of a facility).
comparing at least some of the live security data with the identified pattern to identify when the current behavior of one or more occupants of the facility deviates from the expected behavior by more than a threshold amount of time; (Gopalakrishna, in addition to ¶4, also ¶14 explains in more details comparing the patterns with an expected threshold amount of time and whether it is exceeded or not).
when the current behavior of one or more occupants of the facility deviates from the expected behavior by more than the threshold amount of time, determining a recommended change to one or more user-specific static configuration settings of a plurality of user-specific static configuration settings that are each assigned to a particular individual occupant of the physical security system and that remain static during normal operation of the physical security system, including one or more of: (Gopalakrishna ¶4 summarizes “a stakeholder may want to more closely monitor the high security zone. When a card [of a particular individual occupant of the system] is used beyond [threshold amount of time] an identified number of times within an identified period of time, a stakeholder may want to restrict or flag the card [determining a recommended change to one or more user-specific static configuration settings]” wherein the settings to restrict or flag the cards remains during operation until an investigation is complete as disclosed by the paragraph).
a transient duration setting that represents a duration that must occur between successive card swipes; (Gopalakrishna ¶4 summarizes “When a special card is swiped an identified number of times within an identified period of time, such as three valid card swipes within five seconds on a perimeter door of a facility or five valid card swipes within thirty seconds on an interior door of the facility, a stakeholder may want to arm or disarm the facility accordingly.”).
a door open state time setting that represents a maximum duration that a door may remain open before an alert is issued; (Gopalakrishna ¶4 summarizes “when a door generates a door held open alarm within an identified period of time, a stakeholder may want to automatically adjust the held open time for triggering such an alarm.”)
Gopalakrishna does not explicitly disclose: soliciting approval from a site operator of the physical security system for the recommended change to the one or more static configuration settings;
However, Lee in an analogous art discloses: soliciting approval from a site operator of the physical security system for the recommended change to the one or more static configuration settings; (Lee ¶25 discloses based on the recommended change to the security settings “The security system may request approval [soliciting] from the user to change the operating mode, such as from a voice command, a key input on a controller, and/or an input from a user device (e.g., smartphone, wearable computing device, or the like).”)
when approval is received from the site operator of the physical security system, applying the recommended change to the one or more static configuration settings, (Lee ¶26 with respect to the allowance of a requested approval “the security system may use the allowances to govern system operation [applying the recommended change]”)
and operate the physical security system using the recommended change to the one or more changed user-specific static configuration settings; (Lee ¶77 discloses operating the system as “home mode” based on the “disarmed” status. The second embodiment mapped in the previous limitation, Lee ¶98 also discloses operating the security system using the higher-level security).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the security system disclosed by Gopalakrishna with soliciting approval from a site operator of the physical security system for the recommended change to the one or more static configuration settings as disclosed by Lee to allow the user control over system recommended settings (see Lee ¶77and 98).
Gopalakrishna and Lee do not explicitly disclose: when approval is not received from the site operator of the physical security system, discarding the recommended change to the one or more user-specific static configuration settings static configuration settings.
However, Porto in an analogous art discloses: and when approval is not received from the site operator of the physical security system, discarding the recommended change to the one or more user-specific static configuration settings static configuration settings. (Porto ¶143 teaches system identifying security threats in a hardware system wherein ¶149 teaches “if a user declines to implement a change recommended by the server 704 [approval is not received from the site operator] at step 1314, the user updates the knowledge base store 727 with a reason why the recommended solution was discarded. In implementations, the server 704 determines when a solution has already been discarded based on the reasons in the knowledge base store 727, and does not recommend the same solution for the same workflow based thereon.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the security system disclosed by Gopalakrishna and Lee with when approval is not received from the site operator of the physical security system, discarding the recommended change to the one or more user-specific static configuration settings static configuration settings as disclosed by Porto to train the system to learn what settings not to recommend in the future to the user (see Porto ¶149).
Claim 16 recites a system claim and uses different verbiage. However, the claim recites similar claim limitations to claim 1 and is therefore rejected based on the same rationale as claim 1.
With respect to claim 2, Gopalakrishna in view of Lee and Porto disclose: The method of claim 1, wherein determining the recommended change to the one or more static configuration settings comprises automatically determining the recommended change to the one or more changed static configuration settings. (Lee ¶71 and 82 disclose the changing of the security settings is done automatically by the “Controller 73” of changing a changed security system from armed to disarmed and the other way around).
With respect to claim 4, Gopalakrishna in view of Lee and Porto disclose: The method of claim 1, wherein the live security data represents a length of time that one or more occupants took to carry out a predefined physical security system-related task, and the identified pattern identifies an expected length of time to carry out the predefined physical security system-related task. (Lee ¶58 recites “the smart-home environment may learn (e.g., by aggregating data detected by the sensors over a period of time) the amount of exit [predefined security system-related task] time and/or exit patterns [identified pattern] of a user. For example, the system may learn which doors of the home a user frequently exits from, what times the doors are used for exit, the patterns of movement in the house by the user prior to exit (e.g., so that the system may change the operating mode to a transition mode, before changing to an away mode when the user has left), the amount of time the user takes to exit the home [an expected length of time to carry out the predefined security system-related task], or the like. The system may learn to provide the user more time to exit the home if needed, so that an unwanted alarm is not output.” In other words, the live data detects the length of time a user actually takes to exit in comparison to the previously identified pattern to identify the expected length of time a user takes to exit. The user “exit” that influences system operational mode is mapped to the predefined security system-related task. See also Lee ¶78).
With respect to claim 5, Gopalakrishna in view of Lee and Porto disclose: The method of claim 4, wherein the predefined security system-related task comprises one or more of: opening a door after unlocking the door; closing a door after entry; arming the physical security system; and disarming the security system. (Gopalakrishna ¶4 discloses closing a door after entry by having a door held open when reciting “when a door generates a door held open alarm within an identified period of time”).
With respect to claim 9, Gopalakrishna in view of Lee and Porto disclose: The method of claim 1, wherein the recommended change to the one or more changed static configuration security settings comprises a recommended change to a static configuration security setting that increases a security level of at least part of the facility. (Lee ¶98 determine a recommended mode of the armed state based on data from sensors and wherein “second security mode may provide a higher level of security than the first security mode.” And the claimed “at least part of the facility” implicitly could mean the whole facility, which in this case the prior art Lee teaches the security level is adjusted for the facility as recited in Lee ¶98).
With respect to claim 10, Gopalakrishna in view of Lee and Porto disclose: The method of claim 1, wherein the recommended change to the one or more changed user-specific static configuration settings comprises the recommended change to a first static configuration setting that increases a security level of a first part of a facility and the recommended change to a second static configuration setting that decreases a security level of a second part of the facility. (Lee ¶24 “if the system determines that the user is attempting to exit through a front door or a garage door, the system may notify the user that a back door or side door is secure. If the system determines that the user is attempting to exit through the back door or side door that was previously notified as being secure [increased security], the system may remove the restriction [decrease security], so that the user may exit through the door of their choice without an alarm being output.” In other words, while one door security level is armed, increased security status based on user pattern, another one security level is decreased so user can exit without the system sounding an alarm).
With respect to claim 20, Gopalakrishna in view of Lee and Porto disclose: The physical security system of claim 16, wherein the controller is configured to: identify one or more events associated with one or more security requirements based at least in part on the received security data; (according to the examiner’s understanding, Lee ¶84-85 disclose identifying exit events associated with expected security requirements to arm/disarm the security system, which are formulated based on the aggregated data detected by the sensors over time, like which door the user exits from and at what time)
and determine the recommended change to one or more of the user-specific static configuration settings of the physical security system based at least in part on the identified one or more events. (According to Lee ¶85 “The data aggregated [received security data] by the controller 73 may be used to determine entrance and exit patterns [one or more events] (e.g., what days and times users enter and exit from the house, what doors are used, and the like) of the members of the household, and the controller 73 may change the security mode [recommended change to … static configuration settings of the security system] according to the determined patterns.”).
With respect to claim 21, Gopalakrishna in view of Lee and Porto disclose: The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more user-specific static configuration settings include a transient duration setting that represents a duration that must occur between successive card swipes. (Gopalakrishna ¶4 summarizes “When a special card is swiped an identified number of times within an identified period of time, such as three valid card swipes within five seconds on a perimeter door of a facility or five valid card swipes within thirty seconds on an interior door of the facility, a stakeholder may want to arm or disarm the facility accordingly.”).
With respect to claim 23, Gopalakrishna in view of Lee and Porto disclose: The physical security system of claim 16, wherein the one or more user-specific static configuration settings include a transient duration setting that represents a duration that must occur between successive card swipes. (Gopalakrishna ¶4 summarizes “When a special card is swiped an identified number of times within an identified period of time, such as three valid card swipes within five seconds on a perimeter door of a facility or five valid card swipes within thirty seconds on an interior door of the facility, a stakeholder may want to arm or disarm the facility accordingly.”).
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gopalakrishna in view of Lee and Porto as applied to claims 1-2, 4-5, 9-10, 16, 20-21 and above, and further in view of Subbloie et al. (US 20210173358 A1) hereinafter referred to as Subbloie.
With respect to claim 6, Gopalakrishna in view of Lee and Porto disclose: The method of claim 1, wherein the live security data includes a detected event, (Gopalakrishna ¶4 discloses detected events such as card swipe or door left open beyond a threshold duration).
Gopalakrishna does not explicitly disclose: the live security data includes a time stamp for a detected event,
However, Subbloie in an analogous art discloses: the live security data includes a time stamp for a detected event, and the pattern yields an expected time of day for the detected event. (Subbloie Abstract summarizes collecting data to meet expected pattern of times in a day and additionally Subbloie ¶95 “various sensors (72)(73) send data [live security data] to a collection device (74), which in turn, sends the data to computer (76). Each event is time stamped [time stamp for a detected event] so that the correlation of measurement data from all sensors (72,72,75) can be combined.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gopalakrishna in view of Lee and Porto wherein the live security data includes a time stamp for a detected event as disclosed by Subbloie so that the correlation of measurement data from all sensors can be combined based on time factor (see Subbloie ¶95).
With respect to claim 7, Gopalakrishna in view of Lee, Porto and Subbloie disclose: The method of claim 6, wherein the detected event comprises accessing an area of the facility. (Gopalakrishna ¶4 discloses entry and exit of a facility).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gopalakrishna as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 20160189528 A1) hereinafter referred to as Lee in view of Amir et al. (US 20230055822 A1) hereinafter referred to as Amir.
With respect to claim 15, Gopalakrishna discloses: The method of claim 11, wherein changing one or more static configuration setting of the security system results in one of:
Gopalakrishna does not explicitly disclose: decreasing the security level of at least part of the security system in the armed state in order to process people through a secured zone of the facility faster
However, Lee in an analogous art discloses: decreasing the security level of at least part of the security system in the armed state in order to process people through a secured zone of the facility faster; (Lee ¶24 “if the system determines that the user is attempting to exit through a front door or a garage door, the system may notify the user that a back door or side door is secure. If the system determines that the user is attempting to exit through the back door or side door that was previously notified as being secure, the system may remove the restriction [decreasing the security level], so that the user may exit through the door of their choice without an alarm being output.” In other words, while one door security level is armed another one security level is decreased so user can exit without the system sounding an alarm).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gopalakrishna with decreasing the security level of at least part of the security system in the armed state in order to process people through a secured zone of the facility faster as disclosed by Lee to allow easier/faster access (see Lee ¶24).
Gopalakrishna does not explicitly disclose: and increasing the security level of at least part of the security system in response to a perceived threat.
However, Amir in an analogous art discloses: and increasing the security level of at least part of the security system in the armed state in response to a perceived threat. (Amir ¶99 “increase the protection [increasing the security level] of the environmental condition sensor during the actual occurrence of the threat event [in response to a perceived threat]”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gopalakrishna with increasing the security level of at least part of the security system in the armed state in response to a perceived threat as disclosed by Amir to reduce/mitigate the impact of a threat (see Amir ¶91).
Conclusion
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 HANY S GADALLA whose telephone number is (571)272-2322. The examiner can normally be reached Mon to Fri 8:00AM - 4:00PM.
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, Carl Colin can be reached at (571) 272-3862. 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.
/HANY S. GADALLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2493