DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 45-51, 55-70 are pending.
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 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.
Claims 45-47, 49-51, 55-57, 59-63, 65-69 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cushwa et al. [US 9799181] in view of Jacobs [US 20170069196].
As to claim 45. Cushwa discloses A lockdown system for use in a building including at least one room with a door providing access to the at least one room, the lockdown system comprising:
room lockdown components, [fig. 1, col. 2, lines 10-19] barricade device 10, positionable in the at least one room, [fig. 3, col. 3, lines 13-15], the room lockdown components comprising door-securing device, [fig. 1, col. 2, lines 10-19] barricade device 10, and a storage device for storing the door-securing device in a non-deployed condition of the door-securing device, [fig. 3, col. 3, lines 13-15], wherein the door-securing device is manually deployable to a deployed condition, [col. 2, lines 30-31], in which the door securing device is manually positioned to prevent opening of the door providing access to the room, [fig. 2, col. 3, lines 7-9]; and
light fixtures positionable inside the building, [col. 5, lines 19-23] the alert is provided as a light mounted inside or outside the room, the mounted light is interpreted as the light fixture, at least a plurality of the light fixtures selectively providing illumination in one or more colors, a light has at least one color;
wherein initiation of a lockdown event is automatically signaled when the door-securing device is moved from its non-deployed condition and/or is deployed to its deployed condition, [col. 3, lines 34-39] alert communicated when the device is removed from its storage, whereupon the signaled initiation of a lockdown event is communicated to at least one communication device, [col. 3, lines 34-39] alert signaled to a monitoring station 82, and an alert notification of the initiation of the lockdown event is provided via the at least one communication device, [fig. 5, col. 5, lines 28-35];
wherein further the at least a plurality of the light fixtures:
(i) receive the signaled initiation of a lockdown event, [col. 3, lines 42-45] initiation of lockdown event is signaled to other rooms as a wireless alert signal; [col. 4, lines 28-29] wherein the alert signal from lockdown device sensor provided as a light, and
(ii) in response to receipt of the signaled initiation of a lockdown event, automatically provide illumination in one of the one or more colors, [col. 3, lines 42-45] initiation of lockdown event is signaled to other rooms as a wireless alert signal to alert to other rooms that an intruder is in the building, [col. 5, lines 19-27] in the form of a light, that has been predesignated to notify persons in the building that a lockdown event has been initiated ("the notification color"), [col. 5, lines 19-27] the alert is signaled using a light; wherein a light has at least one color which reads on the claimed notification color;
wherein initiation of a lockdown event is signaled via a wireless network, [col. 3, lines 34-45] alert communicated wirelessly when the device is removed from its storage, and wherein the light fixtures form part of the wireless network, [col. 3, lines 37-44] “an alert to be signaled through a communication system … the movement of the barricade device can signal to other rooms 24 that they should deploy their barricade devices ; wherein [col. 5, lines 19-23] states “the alert could be accompanied by a light mounted … inside each room to alert the occupants to deploy the barricade device”; wherein the alert signaled through the communication system, that is used to alert the occupants is also communicated to the light mounted inside each room through the communication system, and makes the lights part of the network.
Cushwa fails to disclose wherein the light fixtures are operative to relay the signaled initiation of a lockdown event to all light fixtures forming part of the wireless network, and wherein further the signaled initiation of a lockdown event is communicated to the art least one communication device via one or more of the light fixtures.
Jacobs teaches an emergency notification and response system 1’ for a building 40 with a plurality of rooms 41 having a condition transmitter device 2 inside each room and a condition indicator device 5 outside each room and a signage 43 in the hallway 44, [fig. 4, 0126, 0127]; wherein the indicator device 5 comprises an indicator module 7 comprising indicator lights for visualizing the security condition, [0108, 0109]; wherein the indicator device further comprises a communication interface 6 for receiving the security notification, [0108]; wherein the communication in the system can be wireless and indirect over intermediate devices, [0099], which can be implemented to use a zigbee network, [0100]; wherein the alert notification can be provided through relay devices from the condition transmitter to the indicator and to any further devices of the system, [0054].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Cushwa with that of Jacobs so that the emergency notification can have multiple routes to reach the intended recipient.
As to claim 46. Cushwa discloses The lockdown system of claim 45, wherein a visual display is provided via the at least one communication device showing at least whether the door-securing device has been moved from its storage device, [col. 6, lines 8-23].
As to claim 47. Cushwa discloses The lockdown system of claim 45, wherein a visual display is provided via the at least one communication device showing at least whether the door-securing device has been moved from its storage device and whether the door-securing device has been moved to the deployed condition thereof, [col. 5, lines 23-26; col. 6, lines 8-23].
As to claim 49. Cushwa discloses The lockdown system of claim 45, wherein: the door-securing device has at least a first pin for insertion into a mating socket positionable proximate a door to be secured, [fig. 2] pin 20, and receptacle 16, the deployed condition of the door-securing device is characterized by the at least first pin being received in the socket, [fig. 2, col. 3, lines 4-11].
As to claim 50. Cushwa discloses The lockdown system of claim 45, wherein the signaled initiation of a lockdown event is communicated, via the at least one communication device, to at least one other communication device, [col. 3, lines 34-39] alert signaled to a monitoring station 82.
As to claim 57. Cushwa discloses The lockdown system of claim 45, wherein a visual display is provided via the at least one communication device showing at least the locations of the at least a plurality of the light fixtures and the location of the door-securing device, [fig. 5, col. 5, lines 23-27], showing whether any of the at least a plurality of the light fixtures are providing illumination in the notification color, and further showing whether the door-securing device is in the non-deployed condition thereof, [fig. 5, col. 5, lines 23-27] display shows where the device is deployed and where it is not deployed.
As to claim 55. Cushwa fails to disclose The lockdown system of claim 45, wherein further one or more of the at least a plurality of the light fixtures provides illumination in the notification color in response to manual input via the at least one communication device.
Jacobs teaches an emergency notification and response system with colored LED indicator lights as an alert illumination, [0122]; wherein the indicator can be activated manually by a remote activation unit 50, [0128-0130].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Cushwa with that of Jacobs so that a user outside the rooms can initiate lockdown if an emergency is identified.
As to claim 56. Cushwa fails to disclose The lockdown system of claim 55, wherein the one or more of the at least a plurality of the light fixtures selectively provide illumination in a plurality of colors, and wherein further the illumination color of each of the one or more of the at least a plurality of light fixtures is independently selectively changeable in response to manual input via the at least one communication device.
Jacobs teaches an emergency notification and response system with color coded LED indicator lights as an alert illumination, [0112]; wherein the indicator can be activated manually by a remote activation unit 50 to selectively activate each conditions of the indicator, [0128-0130].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Cushwa with that of Jacobs so that the a user outside the rooms can initiate lockdown if an emergency is identified.
As to claim 59. Cushwa discloses A lockdown system for use in a building including at least one room with a door providing access to the at least one room, the lockdown system comprising:
components, [fig. 1, col. 2, lines 10-19] barricade device 10, positionable in the at least one room, [fig. 3, col. 3, lines 13-15], the room lockdown components comprising door-securing device, [fig. 1, col. 2, lines 10-19] barricade device 10, and a storage device for storing the door-securing device in a non-deployed condition of the door-securing device, [fig. 3, col. 3, lines 13-15], wherein the door-securing device is manually deployable to a deployed condition, [col. 2, lines 30-31], in which the door securing device is manually positioned to prevent opening of the door providing access to the room, [fig. 2, col. 3, lines 7-9], and
wherein initiation of a lockdown event is signaled when the door-securing device is moved from its non-deployed condition and/or when the door-securing device is deployed to its deployed condition, [col. 3, lines 34-39]; and
light fixtures positionable inside the building, [col. 5, lines 19-23], the light fixtures operative to:
(i) selectively provide illumination, [col. 5, lines 19-23];
(ii) receive the signaled initiation of a lockdown event, [col. 5, lines 19-23], via a wireless communication network, [col. 3, lines 34-39] alert signaled to a monitoring station 82, when the door-securing device is moved from its non- deployed condition and/or when the door-securing device is deployed to its deployed condition, [col. 3, lines 34-39], and in response thereto provide illumination in one of the one or more colors, [col. 3, lines 42-45] initiation of lockdown event is signaled to other rooms as a wireless alert signal to alert to other rooms that an intruder is in the building, [col. 5, lines 19-27] in the form of a light, that has been predesignated to notify persons in the building that a lockdown event has been initiated("the notification color"), [col. 5, lines 19-27] the alert is accompanied by a light; wherein a light has at least one color which reads on the claimed notification color; and
(iii) receive, via the wireless communication network, the signaled initiation of a lockdown event via at least one communication device, [col. 3, lines 42-45] initiation of lockdown event is signaled to other rooms as a wireless alert signal to alert to other rooms that an intruder is in the building, [col. 5, lines 19-27] in the form of a light, and in response thereto provide illumination in the notification color, [col. 5, lines 19-27] the alert is signaled as a light; wherein a light has at least one color which reads on the claimed notification color;
wherein the light fixtures form part of the wireless network, [col. 5, lines 19-233] the alert accompanied by a light mounted inside each room, which requires sending the alert signal to the light unit through the network, [col. 4, lines 16-30] alert signal from sensor communicated to the visual alarm device.
Cushwa fails to disclose wherein the initiation of a lockdown event is in response to manual input; and wherein the light fixtures are operative to relay the signaled initiation of a lockdown event to all light fixtures forming part of the wireless network.
Jacobs teaches an emergency notification and response system 1’ for a building 40 with a plurality of rooms 41 having a condition transmitter device 2 inside each room and a condition indicator device 5 outside each room and a signage 43 in the hallway 44, [fig. 4, 0126, 0127]; wherein the indicator device 5 comprises an indicator module 7 comprising indicator lights for visualizing the security condition, [0108, 0109]; wherein the indicator device further comprises a communication interface 6 for receiving the security notification, [0108]; wherein the communication in the system can be wireless and indirect over intermediate devices, [0099], which can be implemented to use a zigbee network, [0100]; wherein the alert notification can be provided through relay devices from the condition transmitter to the indicator and to any further devices of the system, [0054]; wherein the indicator can be activated manually by a remote activation unit 50, [0128-0130].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Cushwa with that of Jacobs so that the user can be alerted to the lockdown with a simple color-coded alert that can be easily and quickly identified by the users.
As to claim 60. Cushwa discloses The lockdown system of claim 59, wherein further, when the door-securing device is moved from its non-deployed condition and/or when the door-securing device is deployed to its deployed condition, [col. 3, lines 34-39], the signaled initiation of a lockdown event is communicated to the at least one communication device, [col. 3, lines 34-39] alert signaled to a monitoring station 82, and an alert notification of the initiation of the lockdown event is provided via the at least one communication device, [fig. 5, col. 5, lines 28-35].
As to claims 61-63, 65-67, 69 are rejected using the same prior arts and reasoning as to that of claims 56, 46, 47, 57, 49-51, respectively.
As to claim 68. Cushwa discloses The lockdown system of claim 67, wherein the at least one other communication device is disposed external of the building, [col. 3, lines 60-66] alert from building to local law enforcement.
Claims 58, 70 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cushwa in view of Jacobs as applied to claims 45 and 59 above, further in view of Allibhoy et al. [US 20160232728].
As to claim 58. the combination of Cushwa and Jacobs fails to disclose The lockdown system of claim 45, wherein further one or more of the plurality of the light fixtures receives text messages and converts those text messages into audio which emanates from one or more speakers provided in said one or more light fixtures.
Allibhoy teaches a system and method of entry control wherein the system sends a text message to a door controller module and the module outputs the text as an audio, [0040].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Cushwa and Jacobs with that of Allibhoy so that the system can save on communication bandwidth.
As to claim 70. is rejected using the same prior arts and reasoning as to that of claim 58.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 48, 64 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Argument 1: Cushwa instead discloses a system where an "alert could be accompanied by a light mounted outside each room 24 to further alert administrators and authorities, or inside each room 24 to further alert the occupants to deploy the barricade device 10." This does not disclose any particular means by which the light would be illuminated to alert occupants to deploy the barricade device.
Response 1: Cushwa, [col. 5, lines 19-23], clearly states that “the alert could be accompanied by a light mounted … inside each room to alert the occupants to deploy the barricade device”.
Argument 2: Cushwa instead discloses a system where an "alert could be accompanied by a light mounted outside each room 24 to further alert administrators and authorities, or inside each room 24 to further alert the occupants to deploy the barricade device 10." This does not disclose any particular means … that "the signaled initiation of a lockdown event is communicated to at least one communication device via one or more of the light fixtures," all as instantly claimed.
Response 2: In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The Office Action is relying on Jacobs to teach the above limitation.
Argument 3: Cushwa admittedly lacks any disclosure of the means by which the movement of a barricade device can be signaled to other rooms.
Response 3: Cushwa, [col. 3, lines 34-45] clearly describes the use of the communication system 84 to signal the alert to other rooms.
Argument 4: Moreover, it is noted that Applicant's claim 45 recites that "the at least a plurality of the light fixtures: (i) receive the signaled initiation of a lockdown event, and (ii) in response to receipt of the signaled initiation of a lockdown event, automatically provide illumination in one of the one or more colors that has been predesignated to notify persons in the building that a lockdown event has been initiated ('the notification color')." The examiner will thus appreciate that, in contrast to the claimed invention, whereby the relayed signaled initiation of a lockdown event causes the light fixtures to automatically provide illumination in the notification color in response to receipt of that relayed signaled initiation, Jacobs is distinguished by illumination of the corresponding lights 31a, 31b, 31c in response only to the selection made at the associated transmitter device for the same room.
Response 4: In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The Office Action is relying on Cushwa to teach the above limitation as detailed in the rejection of claim 45 above.
Argument 5: While Jacobs does teach a further embodiment of the system where the condition transmitter devices 2 communicate with a central hub 95 (see FIG. 9, reproduced below) units to convey a change in state, this is one-way communication from each such device directly to the central hub, as shown by the arrows from each separate device to the central hub in FIG. 9.
Response 5: Jacobs clearly teaches, in [0054], that the condition transmitter device 2, can serve as a rely to transmit the security notification to “any further devices of the system”; wherein devices of the system include all other transmitter devices 2 with display 24 to indicate the security condition.
Argument 6: While this embodiment of Jacobs discloses the use of a wireless network, it remains the case that the communication is of each device's 2 state as set per the process described earlier above (i.e., by an individual in each room according to a common alert, such as via a public address system), and in no way is it disclosed that any of the devices 2 relay their state to any other device 2, including to effect a change in the state of any such device.
Response 6: Jacobs clearly teaches, in [0054], that the condition transmitter device 2, can serve as a rely to transmit the security notification to “any further devices of the system”; wherein devices of the system include all other transmitter devices 2 with display 24 to indicate the security condition.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BENYAM HAILE whose telephone number is (571)272-2080. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 AM - 5:30 PM Mon. - Thur..
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, Steven Lim can be reached at (571)270-1210. 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.
/Benyam Haile/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688
Prosecution Insights