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
This communication is in response to Applicant's Amendment filed 11/26/2025. Applicant has amended claim 1-5, 15, 21 and 23, and cancelled claims 6-7, 12, 18, and 22. Currently, claims 1-5, 8-11, 13-17, 19-21, and 23 are pending in the application.
Response to Amendments
Acknowledgement to applicant’s amendment to claim 22 has been noted. The claims have been reviewed, entered and found obviating to previously raised 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. Rejection to claim 22 is hereby withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed in the amendment filed 11/26/2025, have been fully considered but are not persuasive to overcome prior art of record: Patel et al. (US 2020/0105250 A1).
Applicant states in page 7 of Remarks, that “Office Action has not demonstrated that the prior art of record teaches “receiving, from a first device, a first instruction to block a second device, that is configured to capture audio, from accessing a network” and “receive, from the first device, a second instruction to unblock the second device, wherein the second instruction is based on audio captured by the first device, wherein the audio indicates a trigger condition” as recited in claim 1, as amended.” Examiner notes that Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1, as amended, claims similar subject matter as claim 8 and as such, it has been rejected similarly. With respect with Applicant’s arguments on page 7 in relation to the 35 USC 103 rejection, Examiner notes the following: Patel teaches, in paragraph 104, how the monitoring profile and the monitoring device are connected. Monitoring profile performs routing or blocking of data transmission. Even though the monitoring profile is associated with both A/V collection device and the monitoring device, Examiner notes that the monitoring profile is performing the claimed function of sending of the “first instruction” to block a second device, while the monitoring device is sending the “second instruction” to unblock the second device (See rejection below). Even though the claims require one same device (i.e. “first device”) to send “first instruction” and “second instruction”, it would only require ordinary skill in the art, as a matter of design choice, to make the functions be performed by one same entity, instead of two different entities. See MPEP 2144.04, In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965). Since the Applicant has not disclosed that a first instruction and a second instruction being received from a single “first device”, instead of receiving them from two separate entities, is for any particular purpose or solves any particular problem, it appears that the invention would perform equally well with receiving a first instruction by a monitoring profile and a second instruction by a monitoring device (as in claim 1), as taught by Patel.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5, 8-11, 13-17, 19-21, 23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel et al. (US 2020/0105250 A1, hereinafter “Patel”) in view of Official Notice.
Regarding claim 1, Patel teaches:
1. A method comprising:
receiving from a first [device] (Patel: i.e. monitoring profile), a first instruction to block (Patel: par 63; i.e. gateway device determines an indication of period of time for transmission window is closed from monitoring profile) a second device, that is configured to capture audio (Patel: fig. 3, A/V collection device 305), from accessing a network (fig. 3, par 63, the gateway device blocks data transmission from A/V collection device as indicated by monitoring profile of transmission window being closed);
causing, based on the first instruction, the second device to be blocked from sending data via the network (Patel: par 63; i.e. gateway device determines an indication of period of time for transmission window is closed; gateway device blocks data transmission from A/V collection device based on the indication received that the transmission window is closed);
receiving, from the first device (Patel: i.e. monitoring device), a second instruction to unblock the second device (Patel: par 74, 76, i.e. gateway device receives indication from monitoring device that a trigger word or phrase occurred), wherein the second instruction is based on audio captured by the first device (Patel: par 30; i.e. the monitoring device includes a microphone to monitor for audio), wherein the audio indicates a trigger condition (Patel: par 74, i.e. gateway device receives indication from monitoring device that a trigger word or phrase occurred); and
causing, based on the second instruction, the second device to be unblocked from accessing the network (Patel: par 74, 76, Table 2, i.e. routing communications from A/V collection device; Examiner notes that first example in Table 2, the routing depends on trigger word or phrase occurred; Gateway device receives indication of the trigger word or phrase and opens data transmission for the A/V collection device).
Patel discloses the claimed invention except for the first instruction being received by a first device. First device has been equated to a monitoring device. However, Patel discloses the gateway device receiving the first instruction by a monitoring profile. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have received the indication from a monitoring profile vs. a monitoring device, since both are performing similar functions of monitoring and since the Applicant has not disclosed that a first indication received from a monitoring device, instead of from another monitoring entity is for any particular purpose or solves any particular problem. Therefore, it appears that the invention would perform equally well with receiving a first instruction by a monitoring profile.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Patel teaches:
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the trigger condition (Patel: par 30. 32, i.e. audio includes trigger word or phrase) comprises detection of a trigger word associated with the second device in audio captured by the first device (Patel: par 30; i.e. monitoring device captures audio for A/V collection device).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Patel teaches:
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the first instruction is received from one or more of a camera (Patel: par 30, monitoring device includes a camera), proximity sensor, or a motion sensor, wherein the first instruction is based on detection of a user in an area of a premises in which the second device is located, detection of music turning off, detection of the user leaving an area of the premises, a light turning off, a door opening, a change of a mode of a premises system (Patel: par 76, the indication of the transmission window is closed is determined based on a timer indicated by the monitoring profile; Examiner notes that this timer can be interpreted as a change of mode since it causes the device in the premise to go from an open mode to a closed mode of data transmission), or an arming of the premises system.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Patel teaches:
4. The method of claim 1, wherein a gateway device located at a premises associated with the second device, is configured to store data from the second device in a buffer (Patel: par 32, gateway device stores data transmission), wherein causing the second device to be unblocked causes the data to be sent via the network (Patel: par 137, updating a media access control information table to enable data transmission via the network).
Regarding claim 5 the combination of Patel teaches:
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the first instruction to block the second device is based on a voice command from the first device to pause (Examiner interprets this as a block of access) access, by the first device, to the network (Patel: fig. 3, par 76; i.e. the indication of transmission window is closed in order to block the A/V collection device is generated by a timer which in itself is activated by the trigger word received for the A/V collection device, see also par 30, i.e. gateway device receives indication from monitoring device that a trigger word or phrase occurred).
Regarding claim 8, Patel teaches:
8. A method comprising:
receiving, by a gateway device (Patel: i.e. gateway device) located at a premises and from a first device (Patel: i.e. monitoring device) located at the premises (fig. 3), a first instruction to block (Patel: par 63; i.e. gateway device determines an indication of period of time for transmission window is closed from monitoring profile) a second device, located at the premises, from accessing a network associated with the premises (fig. 3, par 63, the gateway device blocks data transmission from A/V collection device as indicated by monitoring profile of transmission window being closed);
causing, by the gateway device and based on the first instruction, the second device to be blocked from communication via the network (Patel: par 63, i.e. based on the indication that the transmission window is closed, the gateway device blocks data transmission from A/V collection device);
receiving, by the gateway device, a second instruction (Patel: par 74, i.e. trigger word or phrase has occurred) to unblock the second device from accessing the network (Patel: par 74, 76, i.e. gateway device receives indication from monitoring device that a trigger word or phrase occurred), wherein the second instruction is based on data indicating detection by the first device of a trigger condition associated with unblocking the second device (Patel: par 74, 76, i.e. gateway device, receiving from monitoring device, an indication of trigger word or phrase has occurred, open the transmission window for A/V collection device); and
causing, by the gateway device and based on the second instruction, the second device to be unblocked from accessing the network (Patel: par 74, 76, Table 2, i.e. routing communications from A/V collection device; Examiner notes that first example in Table 2, the routing depends on trigger word or phrase occurred; Gateway device receives indication of the trigger word or phrase and opens data transmission for the A/V collection device).
Patel discloses the claimed invention except for the first instruction being received by a first device. First device has been equated to a monitoring device. However, Patel discloses the gateway device receiving the first instruction by a monitoring profile. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have received the indication from a monitoring profile vs. a monitoring device, since both are performing similar functions of monitoring and since the Applicant has not disclosed that a first indication received from a monitoring device, instead of from another monitoring entity is for any particular purpose or solves any particular problem. Therefore, it appears that the invention would perform equally well with receiving a first instruction by a monitoring profile.
Regarding claim 9, Patel teaches:
9. The method of claim 8, wherein the trigger condition comprises detection of a trigger word associated with controlling the second device in audio data indicated by the data (Patel: par 74, 76, the receiving audio includes a trigger word).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Patel teaches:
10. The method of claim 8, wherein the first device is one or more of a camera (Patel: par 30, monitoring device includes a camera), a proximity sensor, or a motion sensor, wherein the trigger condition comprises detection of a user in an area of the premises in which the second device (Patel: par 30, monitoring device and monitoring device are within the premises 300) is located (Patel: fig. 3).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Patel teaches:
11. The method of claim 8, further comprising storing, by the gateway device, data from the second device in a buffer (Patel: par 32, gateway device stores data transmission), wherein causing the second device to be unblocked causes the data to be sent via the network (Patel: par 32, gateway device when it determines to route a data transmission, the routing causes the gateway to forward the data transmission onto the network)
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Patel teaches:
13. The method of claim 8, wherein the first instruction is based one or more of completion of an operation by a user, detection of music turning off, detection of the user leaving an area of the premises, a light turning off, a door opening, a change of a mode of a premises system (Patel: par 76, the indication of the transmission window is closed is determined based on a timer indicated by the monitoring profile; Examiner notes that this timer can be interpreted as a change of mode since it causes the device in the premise to go from an open mode to a closed mode of data transmission), or an arming of the premises system.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Patel teaches:
14. The method of claim 8, further comprising determining a user, of a plurality of users associated with the premises (Patel: Fig. 3), wherein the causing the second device to be blocked from accessing the network is based on a permission associated with the user (Patel: par 3, 26, 30, user dictates commands that cause A/V collection device to either route or block the transmission, based on the trigger word or phrase).
Regarding claim 15, Patel teaches:
15. A method comprising:
capturing, by a first device (Patel: i.e. monitoring device) located at a premises, first audio data at the premises (Patel: fig. 3, par 30, 32, monitoring device monitors types of data, the data includes audio data);
determining, by the first device, that the first audio data comprises a trigger word associated with controlling a second device (Patel: i.e. A/V collection device) located at the premises (Patel: par 30, monitoring device determines audio, including trigger word or phrase for the A/V collection device);
sending, by the first [device] (Patel: monitoring profile) and to a network device located at the premises, a first instruction to block the second device from sending data via a network based on a network configuration associated with the premises (Patel: par 63; i.e. gateway device determines an indication of period of time for transmission window is closed from monitoring profile); and
sending, based on determining that second audio data comprises the trigger word (Patel: par 30, the receiving audio includes a trigger word) and to a network device (i.e. gateway device, fig. 3) located at the premises, a second instruction to update the network configuration (i.e. Examiner interprets this as either route or block transmission) to unblock the second device from accessing the network (Table 2, par 33, trigger words that determine whether to route or block data transmission from A/V collection device by the gateway device, see also par 74, 76).
Patel discloses the claimed invention except for the first instruction being received by a first device. First device has been equated to a monitoring device. However, Patel discloses the gateway device receiving the first instruction by a monitoring profile. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have received the indication from a monitoring profile vs. a monitoring device, since both are performing similar functions of monitoring and since the Applicant has not disclosed that a first indication received from a monitoring device, instead of from another monitoring entity is for any particular purpose or solves any particular problem. Therefore, it appears that the invention would perform equally well with receiving a first instruction by a monitoring profile.
Regarding claim 16, Patel teaches:
16. The method of claim 15, the first device comprises one or more of a voice controlled device, a microphone device, a camera device (Patel: par 30, monitoring device includes a camera), or a remote control device.
Regarding claim 17, Patel teaches:
17. The method of claim 15, wherein the network device is configured to store data from the second device in a buffer (Patel: par 32, gateway device stores data transmission), wherein causing the network device to update the network configuration to unblock the second device from accessing the network causes the data to be sent via the network (Patel: gateway device makes determination of either routing or blocking the data transmission from A/V collection device – see par 3, 29-32; Examiner notes that when a determination is done whether to either route or block, an update of the network configuration is being performed as the A/V collection device is being allowed or not to transmit data).
Regarding claim 19, Patel teaches:
19. The method of claim 15, wherein the network configuration blocking the second device from accessing the network is based on an additional trigger condition comprising one or more of completion of an operation by a user, detection of music turning off, detection of the user leaving an area of the premises, a light turning off, a door opening, a change of a mode of a premises system (Patel: par 76, the indication of the transmission window is closed is determined based on a timer indicated by the monitoring profile; Examiner notes that this timer can be interpreted as a change of mode since it causes the device in the premise to go from an open mode to a closed mode of data transmission), or an arming of the premises system.
Regarding claim 20, Patel teaches:
20. The method of claim 15, further comprising determining a user, of a plurality of users associated with the premises, associated with the audio data, wherein the causing the update to the network configuration to unblock the second device from accessing the network is based on a permission associated with the user (Patel: fig. 3, par 28, the user interacts with A/V collection device and determination of whether the user is authorized user is made).
Regarding claim 21, Patel teaches:
21. The method of claim 1, wherein the second device comprises one or more of: a computing device, a network device, a premises device, a voice-controlled device, a device comprising a microphone (Patel: fig. 1, microphone 124, par 21, par 26; i.e. A/V collection device collects audio via microphone and video via camera), a device comprising a speaker, or a controller for a media device.
Regarding claim 23, Patel teaches:
23. The method of claim 1, wherein the first device comprises one or more of: a computing device, a trusted device, a listening device, a voice controlled device, a audio capture device (Patel: par 30; i.e. the monitoring device includes a microphone to monitor for audio), a television, a remote control, a set top box, a media streaming device, a mobile device, or a tablet.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIZBETH TORRES-DIAZ whose telephone number is 571-272-1787. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00a-4:30p.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Linglan Edwards can be reached on 571-270-5440. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LIZBETH TORRES-DIAZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2408
March 6, 2026