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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on November 26, 2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 2, 11, 12, 14, 19 have been amended.
Claims 4, 8, 17 have been cancelled.
Claim 23 has been added.
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.
Claims 1 – 7, 9 – 13 – 16, 18 – 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joshi et al. (US PGPub 20160070276 A1) in view of Gray et al. (US Patent 11,055,978 B1).
In regards to claim 1, Joshi discloses a system, comprising:
In regards to:
a processor; and
a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processor of the system, facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising
(Fig. 1 wherein a computer system for facilitating performance of operations, as will be discussed below, is disclosed):
detecting an incident, on a property, to which remediation is applicable (¶ 121, 129, 130, 139, 142 wherein an incident, which has an applicable remediation, is detected);
sending a request to a first device associated with a first party determined to be responsible for the property, the request comprising first data describing the incident and remediation proposal data representative of a proposed remediation to address the incident (¶ 130, 139, 142 wherein a request is sent to, for example, a homeowner comprising information describing the incident and a service offer (remediation proposal data representative of a proposed remediation to address the incident));
obtaining second data comprising acceptance data representative of an acceptance by the first party with respect to the proposed remediation (¶ 130, 139, 142 wherein an acceptance authorizing the performance of the service offer is received from the homeowner to remediate the incident);
in response to the obtaining of the acceptance data:
creating a connection involving a second device associated with an entity to perform the proposed remediation to address the incident to permit a collection of information to aid in a resolution of the incident (¶ 133, 134, 137, 141 wherein after the homeowner approves a request, the system creates a connection with a service provider to share sensor data, if the service provider is authorized to have access to such information, in order to provide services, in the event that the service provider is requesting the sensor data),
communicating with a camera in a vicinity of the incident to gather real time images of the incident to generate a cost estimate that is based on accessibility and tools and parts needed to address the incident (¶ 120, 124 wherein sensor devices can include, but are not limited to, a camera or video recorder to provide images or video; ¶ 139 wherein sensor data can include current and/or historical sensor data; ¶ 133, 134, 137, 141 wherein after the homeowner approves a request, the system creates a connection with a service provider to share sensor data, if the service provider is authorized to have access to such information, in order to provide services, in the event that the service provider is requesting the sensor data; ¶ 94, 103, 147, 227, 228, 229, 233, 234 wherein the system calculates a cost estimate for performing the service based on the sensor data and parts needed; ¶ 128, 129 wherein the sensor data provides information on the conditions of the environment by determining if a threat is increasing and/or whether tools are needed, e.g., safety mask (tool) is needed due to air quality or a threat is increasing (e.g., increase in smoke or carbon monoxide), thereby decreasing the safety of the environment, i.e. accessibility),
In regards to:
scheduling an appointment with the entity to perform the proposed remediation to address the incident, and
communicating with [a] device associated with the entity to allow access to the property by a second party associated with the entity
(¶ 79, 130, 139, 142, 160, 184, 186, 194, 216, 227, 228, 229, 231, 238, 241 wherein the homeowner receives the alert and accompanying service offer that the homeowner can accept to notify and authorize a service provider to perform the service to remedy the incident, i.e. the notification and authorization schedules an appointment with the service provider, via the service provider’s computer system, to authorize the service provider to go out to the homeowners property to remedy the incident.
Although “allow” is a broad concept and simply requires that the second party is not prohibited from accessing the property, the Examiner has provided an alternate and more conservative rejection in view of Gray to teach an alternate interpretation for “allow access to the property by a second party”.); and
[…];
In regards to:
detecting a motion of [a] party [along a path that [they are not authorized to be in]; and
based on the detecting of the motion, triggering an alarm
(¶ 120, 121, 165 wherein the system includes a plurality of different sensor types, such as, but not limited to, a motion sensor, wherein, based on detecting motion, will trigger alarm, e.g., detecting motion by an unauthorized party.
The Examiner has provided an alternate interpretation in view of Gray to teach that an alarm is triggered because although Joshi discloses that an authorized party is allowed enter the premises this does not mean they can go anywhere on the premises, i.e. along a path that is not associated with the proposed remediation, and that the motion detector and triggering of the alarm is selective, i.e. allowing authorized parties to enter the premises, but being granular enough to determine when they have strayed from their authorized path.).
Joshi discloses a system and method of monitoring a user’s home utilizing a plurality of sensors and devices, e.g., motion sensors, that are designed to monitor and report the environmental condition of a home and providing an alert when an incident has been identified. In response to the system identifying an incident, the system will notify the user of the incident and suggest remedial actions that can be taken, such as, but not limited to, modifying the settings of a remote sensor/device, accepting a service offer, authorizing a service offer, and authorizing a service provider to resolve the incident. Although Joshi discloses the use of an intermediary and authorization check, Joshi fails to disclose all possible types of verification processes that can be performed to allow access to the property, guide the party to the location of the incident, and determine whether the party is following a path that is associated with the proposed remediation.
To be more specific, Joshi fails to explicitly disclose:
communicating with the second device associated with the entity to allow access to the property by a second party associated with the entity;
upon entry of the second party at the property, and based on the communicating with the second device, directing the second party to a location of the incident on the property via an output of a smart speaker, wherein the directing is based on a use of a second camera and a motion sensor at the property that are used to determine a location of the second party at the property;
detecting a motion of the second party along a path that is not associated with the proposed remediation; and
based on the detecting of the motion, triggering an alarm
However, Gray, which is also directed to a system and method of utilizing remote sensors/devices to monitor a home to identify and report an incident, further teaches that it is not only old and well-known for a service provider to enter the premises of the user’s property so that the incident can be resolved, but to utilize a system that captures an image of the service provider’s vehicle in order to compare it against an authorized list of information associated with the vehicle, i.e. a camera is used to capture an image of the service provider and their vehicle to have the image(s) communicated to the system for verification and access granting purposes. For example, Gray teaches that the system can capture an image of the service provider’s truck in order to identify a logo of the service provider on the vehicle and determine whether the service provider is associated with the service that is to be conducted by comparing the collected information with stored, verified information.
Gray further teaches that motion detectors and cameras can be used to detect the motion and presence of a service person in an area that they are not authorized to enter when performing their assigned service assignment at their assigned time, i.e. the system communicated with the service provider on a scheduled time and date to perform a service that would, in turn, grant them access to the premises and location associated with performance of the service. The system also utilizes smart home devices to provide instructions/guidance to the service person, as well as detecting their location to determine if they are authorized for being at a particular location, wherein the devices include, but, are not limited to, speakers, cameras, and motion detectors.
One of ordinary skill in the art looking upon the teachings of Gray would have found it beneficial to incorporate the teachings into the system and method of Joshi, which teaches remote monitoring and authorization of services, as this would confirm that services are completed, that services are completed in a timely manner, ensure that the service provider is authorized to perform a particular task that corresponds to the service they are authorized to complete, determine that the service person is not straying from the location that corresponds to their assigned task, and improve the efficiency in which the services may be performed.
(Support can be found at: Col. 4 – 5 Lines 52 – 3; Col. 5 Lines 32 – 63; Gray – Col. 6 – 7 Lines 57 – 28; Col. 9 Lines 35 – 67; Col. 8 Lines 26 – 52; Col. 10 Lines 58 – 58; Col. 11 Lines 4 – 37; Col. 12 Lines 20 – 44; Col. 13 – 14 Lines 62 – 10 wherein the service provider’s image, e.g., face and/or vehicle, is taken and analyzed to determine if the service provider is the authorized service provider that is expected to perform the service at the expected, i.e. scheduled, time, as well as providing the service provider with an access code to allow entry onto the premises at the expected time and using various sensors, such as, but not limited to, a motion detector to detect the motion of the service provider and determining whether to trigger an alert if the service provider is at a location they are not authorized to enter)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate into the premise and incident monitoring system and method with service provider scheduling capabilities of Joshi with the ability to provide an entity, e.g., homeowner, with the ability to grant service provider access to their home, as taught by Gray, as this would confirm that services are completed, that services are completed in a timely manner, ensure that the service provider is authorized to perform a particular task that corresponds to the service they are authorized to complete, and improve the efficiency in which the services may be performed.
In regards to claim 2, the combination of Joshi and Gray discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise communicating, to the second device of the entity, directional guidance data representative of directional guidance to the location of the incident (Joshi – ¶ 170; Gray – Col. 6 – 7 Lines 57 – 21; Col. 8 Lines 26 – 52 wherein the service provider is given direction guidance to the location of the incident. As discussed above, the combination of Joshi and Gray discloses that the user selects and authorizes a specific service provider to perform a specific job at their home and will monitor the service provider’s behavior to ensure that the job is completed, as well as ensure that the service provider is going to the specific location they have been authorized to go to in order to remedy the incident, thereby further establishing that although more than one service provider may be identified only one service provider is selected an authorized, i.e. the other estimate is not accepted.).
In regards to claim 3, the combination of Joshi and Gray discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise, in response to determining that the access to the property has taken place by the second party, sending, via the first device, an alert directed to the first party to inform the first party of the access to the property by the second party (Gray – Col. 5 Lines 32 – 63; Col. 9 Lines 24 – 67; Col. 10 Lines 1 – 59; Col. 11 Lines 4 – 37; Col. 11 – 12 Lines 53 – 8 wherein the system monitors and tracks the service provider entering and leaving the home, performance of the job, and notifies the homeowner of the service provider’s actions to determine if the service was performed and whether to pay the service provider. As discussed above, the combination of Joshi and Gray discloses that the user selects and authorizes a specific service provider to perform a specific job at their home and will monitor the service provider’s behavior to ensure that the job is completed, as well as ensure that the service provider is going to the specific location they have been authorized to go to in order to remedy the incident, thereby further establishing that although more than one service provider may be identified only one service provider is selected an authorized, i.e. the other estimate is not accepted. ).
In regards to claim 5, the combination of Joshi and Gray discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the entity is a first entity, wherein the remediation proposal data comprises a first estimate received based on first user input to the second device from the first entity and a second estimate received based on second user input to a third device associated with a second entity, and wherein the obtaining of the second data comprises obtaining the acceptance data with respect to the acceptance of the first estimate and without any acceptance with respect to the second estimate (Joshi – ¶ 103, 130, 164, 226, 227, 228, 231 wherein the system provides the homeowner with pricing and duration information to perform a service as part of the information included in the service offer, which can further include suggestion or recommendation of specific service provider or product to address or perform a remedial action in response to a detected incident. As discussed above, the combination of Joshi and Gray discloses that the user selects and authorizes a specific service provider to perform a specific job at their home and will monitor the service provider’s behavior to ensure that the job is completed, as well as ensure that the service provider is going to the specific location they have been authorized to go to in order to remedy the incident, thereby further establishing that although more than one service provider may be identified only one service provider is selected an authorized, i.e. the other estimate is not accepted.).
In regards to claim 6, the combination of Joshi and Gray discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise accessing a data store, based on the incident, to determine the entity, and wherein the remediation proposal data identifies the entity (Joshi – ¶ 103, 130, 164, 226, 227, 228, 231 wherein the system identifies and recommends an entity that can perform the remediation task; Gray – Col. 3 Lines 40 – 59 wherein the system manages a plurality of service providers that can perform specific jobs. As discussed above, the combination of Joshi and Gray discloses that the user selects and authorizes a specific service provider to perform a specific job at their home and will monitor the service provider’s behavior to ensure that the job is completed, as well as ensure that the service provider is going to the specific location they have been authorized to go to in order to remedy the incident, thereby further establishing that although more than one service provider may be identified only one service provider is selected an authorized, i.e. the other estimate is not accepted.).
In regards to claim 7, the combination of Joshi and Gray discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the communicating with the second device associated with the entity comprises sending access code data representative of an access code usable to allow the access to the property (Gray – Col. 5 Lines 32 – 63; Col. 6 – 7 Lines 57 – 21; Col. 9 Lines 35 – 57; Col. 12 Lines 20 – 33 wherein the service provider is provided an access code to allow entry onto the premises at the expected time. As discussed above, the combination of Joshi and Gray discloses that the user selects and authorizes a specific service provider to perform a specific job at their home and will monitor the service provider’s behavior to ensure that the job is completed, as well as ensure that the service provider is going to the specific location they have been authorized to go to in order to remedy the incident, thereby further establishing that although more than one service provider may be identified only one service provider is selected an authorized, i.e. the other estimate is not accepted.).
In regards to claim 9, the combination of Joshi and Gray discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the communicating with the second device associated with the entity comprises sending access code data that is valid during a timeframe defined based on a time associated with the appointment (Gray – Col. 5 Lines 32 – 63; Col. 6 – 7 Lines 57 – 21; Col. 9 Lines 35 – 57; Col. 12 Lines 20 – 33 wherein the service provider is provided an access code to allow entry onto the premises at the expected time. As discussed above, the combination of Joshi and Gray discloses that the user selects and authorizes a specific service provider to perform a specific job at their home and will monitor the service provider’s behavior to ensure that the job is completed, as well as ensure that the service provider is going to the specific location they have been authorized to go to in order to remedy the incident, thereby further establishing that although more than one service provider may be identified only one service provider is selected an authorized, i.e. the other estimate is not accepted.).
In regards to claim 10, the combination of Joshi and Gray discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise deactivating an alarm during a timeframe defined based on a time associated with the appointment (Joshi – ¶ 121, 127, 128 wherein the remote monitoring devices can be deactivated; Gray – Col. 4 – 5 Lines 52 – 3; Col. 6 – 7 Lines 25 – 28; Col. 8 Lines 26 – 52; Col. 9 Lines 24 – 67; Col. 10 Lines 13 – 58 wherein the home is provided with a plurality of monitoring sensors to track authorized service providers that are expected at during a particular time frame and particular locations to determine their location, have sensors activate/deactivate to track the location of the service provider, activating/deactivating to track performance of an authorized task that corresponds with the authorized service provider, and activate/deactivate sensors when unidentified individuals are detected. As discussed above, the combination of Joshi and Gray discloses that the user selects and authorizes a specific service provider to perform a specific job at their home and will monitor the service provider’s behavior to ensure that the job is completed, as well as ensure that the service provider is going to the specific location they have been authorized to go to in order to remedy the incident, thereby further establishing that although more than one service provider may be identified only one service provider is selected an authorized, i.e. the other estimate is not accepted.).
In regards to claim 11, the combination of Joshi and Gray discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: deactivating a first alarm during a timeframe defined based on a time associated with the appointment, wherein the first alarm is on a path to the location of the incident; and leaving a second alarm activated, wherein the second alarm is not on the path to the location of the incident (Joshi – ¶ 121, 127, 128 wherein the remote monitoring devices can be deactivated; Gray – Col. 4 – 5 Lines 52 – 3; Col. 6 – 7 Lines 25 – 28; Col. 8 Lines 26 – 52; Col. 9 Lines 24 – 67; Col. 10 Lines 13 – 58 wherein the home is provided with a plurality of monitoring sensors to track authorized service providers that are expected at during a particular time frame and particular locations to determine their location, have sensors activate/deactivate to track the location of the service provider, activating/deactivating to track performance of an authorized task that corresponds with the authorized service provider, and activate/deactivate sensors when unidentified individuals are detected. As discussed above, the combination of Joshi and Gray discloses that the user selects and authorizes a specific service provider to perform a specific job at their home and will monitor the service provider’s behavior to ensure that the job is completed, as well as ensure that the service provider is going to the specific location they have been authorized to go to in order to remedy the incident, thereby further establishing that although more than one service provider may be identified only one service provider is selected an authorized, i.e. the other estimate is not accepted.).
In regards to claim 12, the combination of Joshi and Gray discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the first data comprises at least one of. type data specifying a nature of the request, priority data specifying an urgency of the request, or location data associated with the location of the incident (Gray – Col. 4 – 5 Lines 52 – 3; Col. 6 – 7 Lines 25 – 28; Col. 8 Lines 26 – 52; Col. 9 Lines 24 – 67; Col. 10 Lines 13 – 58 wherein the home is provided with a plurality of monitoring sensors to track authorized service providers that are expected at during a particular time frame and particular locations to determine their location, have sensors activate/deactivate to track the location of the service provider, activating/deactivating to track performance of an authorized task that corresponds with the authorized service provider, and activate/deactivate sensors when unidentified individuals are detected. As discussed above, the combination of Joshi and Gray discloses that the user selects and authorizes a specific service provider to perform a specific job at their home and will monitor the service provider’s behavior to ensure that the job is completed, as well as ensure that the service provider is going to the specific location they have been authorized to go to in order to remedy the incident, thereby further establishing that although more than one service provider may be identified only one service provider is selected an authorized, i.e. the other estimate is not accepted.).
In regards to claim 13, the combination of Joshi and Gray discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise initiating a communication session, between a first party device of the first party and a second party device of the second party, in conjunction with the appointment (Joshi – Fig. 22, 25; ¶ 76 wherein communication is initiated between parties involved with an event and addressing the event).
In regards to claim 14, Joshi discloses a method, comprising:
determining, by a system comprising a processor from an analysis of sensor data received from a sensor that senses with respect to a property, existence of an incident related to a property location of the property (¶ 121, 129, 130, 139, 142 wherein an incident, which has an applicable remediation, is detected);
acting, by the system, to halt the existence of the incident at least temporarily according to a first remediation (¶ 130, 139, 142 wherein a request is sent to, for example, a homeowner comprising information describing the incident and a service offer (remediation proposal data representative of a proposed remediation to address the incident); ¶ 130, 139, 142 wherein an acceptance authorizing the performance of the service offer is received from the homeowner to remediate the incident
¶ 121, 127, 128, 129 wherein the remote monitoring devices can be deactivated/activated manually/automatically);
In regards to:
sending, by the system, a first request to a first device associated with an entity to perform a second remediation to address the incident;
creating, by the system, a connection involving the first device to permit a collection of information to aid in a resolution of the incident
(¶ 133, 134, 137, 141 wherein after the homeowner approves a request, the system creates a connection with a service provider to share sensor data, if the service provider is authorized to have access to such information, in order to provide services, in the event that the service provider is requesting the sensor data);
communicating, by the system, with a camera in a vicinity of the incident to gather real time images of the incident to generate a cost estimate that is based on accessibility and tools and parts needed to address the incident (¶ 120, 124 wherein sensor devices can include, but are not limited to, a camera or video recorder to provide images or video; ¶ 139 wherein sensor data can include current and/or historical sensor data; ¶ 133, 134, 137, 141 wherein after the homeowner approves a request, the system creates a connection with a service provider to share sensor data, if the service provider is authorized to have access to such information, in order to provide services, in the event that the service provider is requesting the sensor data; ¶ 94, 103, 147, 227, 228, 229, 233, 234 wherein the system calculates a cost estimate for performing the service based on the sensor data and parts needed; ¶ 128, 129 wherein the sensor data provides information on the conditions of the environment by determining if a threat is increasing and/or whether tools are needed, e.g., safety mask (tool) is needed due to air quality or a threat is increasing (e.g., increase in smoke or carbon monoxide), thereby decreasing the safety of the environment, i.e. accessibility);
In regards to:
communicating, by the system, scheduling information usable to schedule the entity to remediate the existence of the incident at an appointment time according to the second remediation;
communicating, by the system, access information usable to grant access to the property location to the entity to remediate the existence of the incident according to the second remediation during a timeframe spanning the appointment time
operating, by the system, to grant the access to an identified party associated with the entity […], allows the access
(¶ 79, 130, 139, 142, 186, 194, 216, 227, 228, 229, 231, 238, 241 wherein the homeowner receives the alert and accompanying service offer that the homeowner can accept to notify and authorize a service provider to perform the service to remedy the incident, i.e. the notification and authorization schedules an appointment with the service provider, via the service provider’s computer system, to authorize the service provider to go out to the homeowners property to remedy the incident.
Although “grant access” and “allow” are broad concepts and simply requires that the party is not prohibited from accessing the property, the Examiner has provided an alternate and more conservative rejection in view of Gray to teach an alternate interpretation for “to grant the access to an identified party associated with the entity… allows the access”.);
[…];
In regards to:
detecting, by the system, a motion of the identified party along a path that is not associated with the proposed remediation; and
triggering, by the system and based on the detecting of the motion, an alarm system
(¶ 120, 121, 165 wherein the system includes a plurality of different sensor types, such as, but not limited to, a motion sensor, wherein, based on detecting motion, will trigger alarm, e.g., detecting motion by an unauthorized party.
The Examiner has provided an alternate interpretation in view of Gray to teach that an alarm is triggered because although Joshi discloses that an authorized party is allowed enter the premises this does not mean they can go anywhere on the premises, i.e. along a path that is not associated with the proposed remediation, and that the motion detector and triggering of the alarm is selective, i.e. allowing authorized parties to enter the premises, but being granular enough to determine when they have strayed from their authorized path.).
Joshi discloses a system and method of monitoring a user’s home utilizing a plurality of sensors and devices, e.g., motion sensors, that are designed to monitor and report the environmental condition of a home and providing an alert when an incident has been identified. In response to the system identifying an incident, the system will notify the user of the incident and suggest remedial actions that can be taken, such as, but not limited to, modifying the settings of a remote sensor/device, accepting a service offer, authorizing a service offer, and authorizing a service provider to resolve the incident. Although Joshi discloses the use of an intermediary and authorization check, Joshi fails to disclose all possible types of verification processes that can be performed to allow access to the property, guide the party to the location of the incident, and determine whether the party is following a path that is associated with the proposed remediation.
To be more specific, Joshi fails to explicitly disclose:
communicating, by the system, access information usable to grant access to the property location to the entity to remediate the existence of the incident according to the second remediation during a timeframe spanning the appointment time
operating, by the system, to grant the access to an identified party associated with the entity based on an image of a truck, a license plate, or a combination thereof, by which affirmative recognition, matched during the timeframe spanning the appointment time, allows the access
upon entry of the identified party at the property, directing, by the system, the identified party to the property location of the incident on the property via an output of a smart speaker, wherein the directing is based on a use of a second camera and a motion sensor at the property that are used to determine a location of the identified party at the property;
detecting, by the system, a motion of the identified party along a path that is not associated with the proposed remediation; and
trigger, by the system and based on the detecting of the motion, an alarm system
However, Gray, which is also directed to a system and method of utilizing remote sensors/devices to monitor a home to identify and report an incident, further teaches that it is not only old and well-known for a service provider to enter the premises of the user’s property so that the incident can be resolved, but to utilize a system that captures an image of the service provider’s vehicle in order to compare it against an authorized list of information associated with the vehicle, i.e. a camera is used to capture an image of the service provider and their vehicle to have the image(s) communicated to the system for verification and access granting purposes. For example, Gray teaches that the system can capture an image of the service provider’s truck in order to identify a logo of the service provider on the vehicle and determine whether the service provider is associated with the service that is to be conducted by comparing the collected information with stored, verified information.
Gray further teaches that motion detectors and cameras can be used to detect the motion and presence of a service person in an area that they are not authorized to enter when performing their assigned service assignment at their assigned time, i.e. the system communicated with the service provider on a scheduled time and date to perform a service that would, in turn, grant them access to the premises and location associated with performance of the service. The system also utilizes smart home devices to provide instructions/guidance to the service person, as well as detecting their location to determine if they are authorized for being at a particular location, wherein the devices include, but, are not limited to, speakers, cameras, and motion detectors.
One of ordinary skill in the art looking upon the teachings of Gray would have found it beneficial to incorporate the teachings into the system and method of Joshi, which teaches remote monitoring and authorization of services, as this would confirm that services are completed, that services are completed in a timely manner, ensure that the service provider is authorized to perform a particular task that corresponds to the service they are authorized to complete, determine that the service person is not straying from the location that corresponds to their assigned task, and improve the efficiency in which the services may be performed.
(Support can be found at: Col. 4 – 5 Lines 52 – 3; Col. 5 Lines 32 – 63; Gray – Col. 6 – 7 Lines 57 – 28; Col. 9 Lines 35 – 67; Col. 8 Lines 26 – 52; Col. 10 Lines 58 – 58; Col. 11 Lines 4 – 37; Col. 12 Lines 20 – 44; Col. 13 – 14 Lines 62 – 10 wherein the service provider’s image, e.g., face and/or vehicle, is taken and analyzed to determine if the service provider is the authorized service provider that is expected to perform the service at the expected, i.e. scheduled, time, as well as providing the service provider with an access code to allow entry onto the premises at the expected time and using various sensors, such as, but not limited to, a motion detector to detect the motion of the service provider and determining whether to trigger an alert if the service provider is at a location they are not authorized to enter)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate into the premise and incident monitoring system and method with service provider scheduling capabilities of Joshi with the ability to provide an entity, e.g., homeowner, with the ability to grant service provider access to their home, as taught by Gray, as this would confirm that services are completed, that services are completed in a timely manner, ensure that the service provider is authorized to perform a particular task that corresponds to the service they are authorized to complete, and improve the efficiency in which the services may be performed.
In regards to claim 15, the combination of Joshi and Gray discloses the method of claim 14, wherein the acting comprises sending a notification to a second device of a party to take a manual action to halt the existence of the incident (Joshi – ¶ 130, 139, 142 wherein a request is sent to, for example, a homeowner comprising information describing the incident and a service offer (remediation proposal data representative of a proposed remediation to address the incident); ¶ 130, 139, 142 wherein an acceptance authorizing the performance of the service offer is received from the homeowner to remediate the incident;
¶ 121, 127, 128, 129 wherein the remote monitoring devices can be deactivated/activated manually/automatically).
In regards to claim 16, the combination of Joshi and Gray discloses the method of claim 14, wherein the acting to halt the incident comprises communicating with a device to take an automated action to halt the existence of the incident (Joshi – ¶ 130, 139, 142 wherein a request is sent to, for example, a homeowner comprising information describing the incident and a service offer (remediation proposal data representative of a proposed remediation to address the incident); ¶ 130, 139, 142 wherein an acceptance authorizing the performance of the service offer is received from the homeowner to remediate the incident;
¶ 121, 127, 128, 129 wherein the remote monitoring devices can be deactivated/activated manually/automatically).
In regards to claim 18, the combination of Joshi and Gray discloses the method of claim 14, wherein the communicating of the scheduling information usable to schedule the entity to remediate the incident comprises obtaining authorization from an owning party determined to own the property or a property manager determined to be responsible for the property (Gray – Col. 5 Lines 32 – 63; Col. 6 – 7 Lines 57 – 21; Col. 9 Lines 35 – 57; Col. 12 Lines 20 – 33 wherein the service provider is provided an access code to allow entry onto the premises at the expected time. As discussed above, the combination of Joshi and Gray discloses that the user selects and authorizes a specific service provider to perform a specific job at their home and will monitor the service provider’s behavior to ensure that the job is completed, as well as ensure that the service provider is going to the specific location they have been authorized to go to in order to remedy the incident, thereby further establishing that although more than one service provider may be identified only one service provider is selected an authorized, i.e. the other estimate is not accepted.).
In regards to claim 19, Joshi discloses a non-transitory machine-readable medium, comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processor, facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising:
In regards to:
obtaining sensor data from a sensor associated with a property location;
analyzing the sensor data with respect to defined condition criterion to determine an incident related to the property location has occurred
(¶ 121, 129, 130, 139, 142 wherein an incident, which has an applicable remediation, is detected from remote sensors/devices);
determining an action to remediate the incident (¶ 130, 139, 142 wherein a request is sent to, for example, a homeowner comprising information describing the incident and a service offer (remediation proposal data representative of a proposed remediation to address the incident));
taking the action (¶ 130, 139, 142 wherein an acceptance authorizing the performance of the service offer is received from the homeowner to remediate the incident; ¶ 121, 127, 128, 129 wherein the remote monitoring devices can be deactivated/activated manually/automatically);
creating a connection involving the first device to permit a collection of information to aid in a resolution of the incident
(¶ 133, 134, 137, 141 wherein after the homeowner approves a request, the system creates a connection with a service provider to share sensor data, if the service provider is authorized to have access to such information, in order to provide services, in the event that the service provider is requesting the sensor data);
In regards to:
obtaining a second request from the first device for photos and video about the incident;
communicating with a camera in a vicinity of the incident to gather real time images of the incident to generate a cost estimate that is based on accessibility and tools and parts needed to address the incident
(¶ 120, 124 wherein sensor devices can include, but are not limited to, a camera or video recorder to provide images or video; ¶ 139 wherein sensor data can include current and/or historical sensor data; ¶ 133, 134, 137, 141 wherein after the homeowner approves a request, the system creates a connection with a service provider to share sensor data, if the service provider is authorized to have access to such information, in order to provide services, in the event that the service provider is requesting the sensor data; ¶ 94, 103, 147, 227, 228, 229, 233, 234 wherein the system calculates a cost estimate for performing the service based on the sensor data and parts needed; ¶ 128, 129 wherein the sensor data provides information on the conditions of the environment by determining if a threat is increasing and/or whether tools are needed, e.g., safety mask (tool) is needed due to air quality or a threat is increasing (e.g., increase in smoke or carbon monoxide), thereby decreasing the safety of the environment, i.e. accessibility);
scheduling an appointment with the entity to perform the second action (¶ 79, 130, 139, 142, 186, 194, 216, 227, 228, 229, 231, 238, 241 wherein the homeowner receives the alert and accompanying service offer that the homeowner can accept to notify and authorize a service provider to perform the service to remedy the incident, i.e. the notification and authorization schedules an appointment with the service provider, via the service provider’s computer system, to authorize the service provider to go out to the homeowners property to remedy the incident.);
operating to grant the access to an identified party associated with the entity […], allows the access
(¶ 79, 130, 139, 142, 186, 194, 216, 227, 228, 229, 231, 238, 241 wherein the homeowner receives the alert and accompanying service offer that the homeowner can accept to notify and authorize a service provider to perform the service to remedy the incident, i.e. the notification and authorization schedules an appointment with the service provider, via the service provider’s computer system, to authorize the service provider to go out to the homeowners property to remedy the incident.
Although “grant access” and “allow” are broad concepts and simply requires that the party is not prohibited from accessing the property, the Examiner has provided an alternate and more conservative rejection in view of Gray to teach an alternate interpretation for “to grant the access to an identified party associated with the entity… allows the access”.);
[…];
In regards to:
detecting a motion of the identified party along a path that is not associated with the proposed remediation; and
triggering, based on the detecting of the motion, an alarm system
(¶ 120, 121, 165 wherein the system includes a plurality of different sensor types, such as, but not limited to, a motion sensor, wherein, based on detecting motion, will trigger alarm, e.g., detecting motion by an unauthorized party.
The Examiner has provided an alternate interpretation in view of Gray to teach that an alarm is triggered because although Joshi discloses that an authorized party is allowed enter the premises this does not mean they can go anywhere on the premises, i.e. along a path that is not associated with the proposed remediation, and that the motion detector and triggering of the alarm is selective, i.e. allowing authorized parties to enter the premises, but being granular enough to determine when they have strayed from their authorized path.).
Joshi discloses a system and method of monitoring a user’s home utilizing a plurality of sensors and devices, e.g., motion sensors, that are designed to monitor and report the environmental condition of a home and providing an alert when an incident has been identified. In response to the system identifying an incident, the system will notify the user of the incident and suggest remedial actions that can be taken, such as, but not limited to, modifying the settings of a remote sensor/device, accepting a service offer, authorizing a service offer, and authorizing a service provider to resolve the incident. Although Joshi discloses the use of an intermediary and authorization check, Joshi fails to disclose all possible types of verification processes that can be performed to allow access to the property, guide the party to the location of the incident, and determine whether the party is following a path that is associated with the proposed remediation.
To be more specific, Joshi fails to explicitly disclose:
operating to grant the access to an identified party associated with the entity to facilitate the second action to remediate the incident based on an image of a truck, a license plate, or a combination thereof, by which affirmative recognition, matched during the timeframe spanning the appointment time of the appointment, allows the access;
upon entry of the identified party at the property associated with the property location, directing the identified party to the property location of the incident on the property via an output of a smart speaker, wherein the directing is based on a use of a second camera and a motion sensor at the property that are used to determine a location of the identified party at the property;
detecting a motion of the identified party along a path that is not associated with the proposed remediation; and
triggering, based on the detecting of the motion, an alarm system
However, Gray, which is also directed to a system and method of utilizing remote sensors/devices to monitor a home to identify and report an incident, further teaches that it is not only old and well-known for a service provider to enter the premises of the user’s property so that the incident can be resolved, but to utilize a system that captures an image of the service provider’s vehicle in order to compare it against an authorized list of information associated with the vehicle, i.e. a camera is used to capture an image of the service provider and their vehicle to have the image(s) communicated to the system for verification and access granting purposes. For example, Gray teaches that the system can capture an image of the service provider’s truck in order to identify a logo of the service provider on the vehicle and determine whether the service provider is associated with the service that is to be conducted by comparing the collected information with stored, verified information.
Gray further teaches that motion detectors and cameras can be used to detect the motion and presence of a service person in an area that they are not authorized to enter when performing their assigned service assignment at their assigned time, i.e. the system communicated with the service provider on a scheduled time and date to perform a service that would, in turn, grant them access to the premises and location associated with performance of the service. The system also utilizes smart home devices to provide instructions/guidance to the service person, as well as detecting their location to determine if they are authorized for being at a particular location, wherein the devices include, but, are not limited to, speakers, cameras, and motion detectors.
One of ordinary skill in the art looking upon the teachings of Gray would have found it beneficial to incorporate the teachings into the system and method of Joshi, which teaches remote monitoring and authorization of services, as this would confirm that services are completed, that services are completed in a timely manner, ensure that the service provider is authorized to perform a particular task that corresponds to the service they are authorized to complete, determine that the service person is not straying from the location that corresponds to their assigned task, and improve the efficiency in which the services may be performed.
(Support can be found at: Col. 4 – 5 Lines 52 – 3; Col. 5 Lines 32 – 63; Gray – Col. 6 – 7 Lines 57 – 28; Col. 9 Lines 35 – 67; Col. 8 Lines 26 – 52; Col. 10 Lines 58 – 58; Col. 11 Lines 4 – 37; Col. 12 Lines 20 – 44; Col. 13 – 14 Lines 62 – 10 wherein the service provider’s image, e.g., face and/or vehicle, is taken and analyzed to determine if the service provider is the authorized service provider that is expected to perform the service at the expected, i.e. scheduled, time, as well as providing the service provider with an access code to allow entry onto the premises at the expected time and using various sensors, such as, but not limited to, a motion detector to detect the motion of the service provider and determining whether to trigger an alert if the service provider is at a location they are not authorized to enter)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate into the premise and incident monitoring system and method with service provider scheduling capabilities of Joshi with the ability to provide an entity, e.g., homeowner, with the ability to grant service provider access to their home, as taught by Gray, as this would confirm that services are completed, that services are completed in a timely manner, ensure that the service provider is authorized to perform a particular task that corresponds to the service they are authorized to complete, and improve the efficiency in which the services may be performed.
In regards to claim 20, the combination of Joshi and Gray discloses the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 19, wherein the analyzing of the sensor data comprises processing the sensor data to detect at least one of: atypical image data, atypical video data, or atypical audio data respectively relative to defined baseline image data, defined baseline video data, or defined baseline audio data (¶ 79, 84, 97, 120, 199 wherein the system can be provided with a plurality of different sensor types to collect and process various types of sensed data, e.g., break-in sensors, video, microphones, optical sensors, light sensors, and comparing the sensed data against a threshold to determine the occurrence of an incident).
In regards to claim 21, the combination of Joshi and Gray discloses the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 19, wherein the incident comprises a water leak
(First, the Examiner refers to and incorporates MPEP § 2111.04 and 2111.05 as what the incident is intended to be, i.e. a water leak, is directed towards descriptive subject matter that fails to further limit or alter the steps or functions of the claimed invention and its end result. That is to say, whether the incident is a water leak or some other type of incident, the steps, functions, and end result of the claimed invention would be unaffected, i.e. obtaining sensor data to detect the occurrence of an incident and taking actions to remedy the incident (which includes the access control mechanisms) would be performed the same regardless of the incident type. The data identifying the incident as a “water leak” is a label for the incident and adds little, if anything, to the claimed invention and, thus, does not serve to distinguish over the prior art. Any differences related merely to the meaning and information conveyed through labels (i.e., the type of the incident) which does not explicitly alter or impact the steps/functions of the claimed invention does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.
Regardless, Joshi – ¶ 121 discloses a plurality of incident types, such as, but not limited to, a water leak).
In regards to claim 22, the combination of Joshi and Gray discloses the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 19, wherein the operations further comprise:
determining, based on the operating, that the identified party has obtained the access; and
sending, based on the determining that the identified party has obtained the access, an alert to a communication device of a property owner of the property location to inform the property owner of the access to the property location by the identified party
(Gray – Col. 4 – 5 Lines 52 – 63 wherein the system is configured to determine that the identified party has been granted access, monitor the identified party, and send an alert to the property owner of the identified party’s presence and activity. As discussed above, the combination of Joshi and Gray discloses that the user selects and authorizes a specific service provider to perform a specific job at their home and will monitor the service provider’s behavior to ensure that the job is completed, as well as ensure that the service provider is going to the specific location they have been authorized to go to in order to remedy the incident, thereby further establishing that although more than one service provider may be identified only one service provider is selected an authorized, i.e. the other estimate is not accepted.).
______________________________________________________________________
Claims 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joshi et al. (US PGPub 20160070276 A1) in view of Gray et al. (US Patent 11,055,978 B1) in further view of Nuthi et al. (US PGPub 2020/0210268 A1).
In regards to claim 23, the combination of Joshi and Gray discloses a system and method for monitoring a service person while in a home and scheduled to perform a service within the home. The combination of Joshi and Gray discloses a plurality of devices working together to assist and guide the service person to ensure that the job is performed as intended. Despite this, the combination of Joshi and Gray fails to explicitly disclose whether the service person’s is supported through artificial intelligence that provides simulated vision and sound recognition.
To be more specific, the combination of Joshi and Gray fails to explicitly disclose:
the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 19, wherein the entity is supported through artificial intelligence that provides simulated vision and sound recognition.
However, Nuthi, which is also directed towards providing devices to assist a service person with a job, further teaches that it would have been obvious to support the service person through artificial intelligence that provides simulated vision and sound recognition. Specifically, Nuthi teaches providing the technician with a technician device, e.g., laptop, smartphone, tablet, headset, or etc. that assists the technician with managing a schedule, receive service request, look up information related to one or more machines to be serviced, assist with diagnostics and remediation, confirm information, and access information about the machine. Nuthi teaches that the devices are outfitted with artificial intelligence that provides the technician with a digital twin to assist with diagnosing, remedying, and/or aid the technician and/or machine and that the information can be provided to the technician by an image and audio. Nuthi teaches that this reduces manual overhead while processing servicing requests without comprising on accuracy and response time is desirable.
(For support see: ¶ 19, 25, 49, 59, 65, 67, 117, 128)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate into the maintenance management system and method of the combination of Joshi and Gray with the ability to augment the technician’s device with artificial intelligence that provides simulated vision and sound recognition, as taught by Nuthi, because this reduces manual overhead while processing servicing requests without comprising on accuracy and response time is desirable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejection under 35 USC 102/103
The Examiner asserts that the applicant’s arguments are directed towards newly amended limitations and are, therefore, considered moot. However, the Examiner has responded to the newly submitted amendments, which the arguments are directed to, in the rejection above, thereby addressing the applicant’s arguments.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached PTO-892 Notice of References Cited.
Tusch (US Patent 12,499,710 B2) – which is directed towards utilizing monitoring devices to monitor and track users in an indoor environment
Popper (Amazon Key is a new service that lets couriers unlock your front door) – which discloses allowing a service provider to enter a user’s home without the homeowner being at their home
Avvo (Can I video and Audio record a repairman in my home looking at issues, in California?) – which discloses monitoring a service provider while they are in a home performing a service
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 GERARDO ARAQUE JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3747. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-4:30.
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at 571-270-1833. 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.
GERARDO ARAQUE JR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3629
/GERARDO ARAQUE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629 1/27/2026