DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/22/2025 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
Given the large number of references submitted with the Information Disclosure Statements in this case, without citation to relevant portions or explanation of relevance to the present claims, only a cursory consideration has been afforded to this disclosure.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 12/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues: “Without conceding the merits of the rejection and to advance prosecution, Applicant has amended independent claim 1 to recite the features of "maintaining, by an intrusion detection system and for each of two or more sensors, location data that indicates a physical location of the sensor at a premises," "determining, for at least some sensors from the two or more sensors and using at least some of the location data, distances between the respective sensor and i) the predicted intruder physical location and ii) the predicted non-intruder physical location," … As discussed during the telephonic interview on December 19, 2025, the cited portions of Joseph (e. g. , paragraph [0016]) do not disclose or suggest at least these claim features of amended claim 1.”
As a threshold matter, Examiner notes that the amended claim features do not appear to be supported by the Specification. See updated reasons for rejection below.
Examiner suggests (a) citing support for the claimed features in the Specification, (b) amending the claimed features in the manner supported in the Specification, or (c) filing a CIP if such additional features need to be included in the written description.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4, 7-17, 19-23, 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 7-17, 19-22, 24 recite “maintaining, by an intrusion detection system and for each of two or more sensors, location data that indicates a physical location of the sensor at a premises;” however, Applicant did not cite and Examiner did not find support for this feature in the Specification. The closest disclosure in Specification, Paragraph 13 is “data that indicates whether the captured data is for a first area within a threshold distance the predicted intruder physical location or for a second area within a second threshold distance the predicted nonintruder physical location” which indicates location of an area that corresponds to the data captured by the sensor, but not the location of the sensor. There is further no support for maintaining the claimed data by the intrusion detection system as opposed to determining it or classifying it based on sensor data or other parameters.
Similarly, Claims 1-4, 7-17, 19-22, 24 recite “determining, for at least some sensors from the two or more sensors and using at least some of the location data, distances between the respective sensor and i) the predicted intruder physical location and ii) the predicted non-intruder physical location;” is based on unsupported location data above. Also, while Specification makes a determination of whether the sensors are within a threshold distance to an intruder/non-intruder, it is described as a determination of the person being located in a room or within a field of view rather than with respect to a distance measured in units. See Specification, Paragraphs 13, 57-58, 159.
Claim 24 also recites: “wherein selecting the selected sensor comprises: selecting the first sensor that is closest to the predicted intruder physical location” however Applicant did not cite and Examiner did not find support for this claim feature in the Specification.
If the above features are important to the invention, Examiner suggests a CIP that includes a detailed written description of these features.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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 1, 3-4, 7-9, 13-15, 17, 19-22, 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190206208 to Joseph (“Joseph”) in view of US 20190278441 to Haupt (“Haupt”) in view of US 20210067590 Nakanelua (“Nakanelua”).
Regarding Claim 1: “A computer-implemented method comprising:
maintaining, by an intrusion detection system and for each of two or more sensors, location data that indicates a physical location of the sensor at a premises; (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and ordinary skill in the art, a location can designate an area under surveillance. See Specification, Paragraph 13. Joseph maintains data that identifies sensors operating in a zone, which is an area under surveillance in a secured area including “an internal positioning system, and a building information model of a secured area.” See Joseph, Paragraphs 2 and 8. Also see examples in Nakanelua, Paragraph 96 where “The location of the sensor may be known and may be stored in the database.” See statement of motivation below.)
determining, by an intrusion detection system and using data captured by one or more sensors that are physically located at the premises, (“Known intrusion detection systems include a plurality of sensors in a plurality of zones to protect a secured area [premises].” Joseph, Paragraph 2, Figs. 2A-2B. For example, the sensors for a zone can include a camera and a PIR device. Joseph, Paragraph 15. A sensor can also be a smart device or a WiFi sensor as in Paragraph 16 and Fig. 1.
To the extent necessary, where Joseph indicates a plurality of sensors over a plurality of zones as part of the background, it is understood that Joseph elaborates on an improvement to sensors in an individual zone as an improvement on the plurality of sensors of the prior art, and thus represents a combination of the teachings.
This is further supported by Haupt that teaches this combination in the context of distributed sensors and security systems: “FIG. 4 shows an illustrative remote location including receivers and sensors integrated into various appliances, in accordance with aspects of the present invention;” Haupt, Paragraphs, 8, 13, 45 and Fig. 4.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to supplement the teachings of Joseph to use data captured by a plurality of sensors on the premises as taught in the background of Joseph and Haupt, for “presenting users with many different data points to allow for more detailed views and predictions”. Haupt, Paragraph 7.
Finally, in reviewing the present application, there does not seem to be objective evidence that the claim limitations are particularly directed to: addressing a particular problem which was recognized but unsolved in the art, producing unexpected results at the level of the ordinary skill in the art, or any other objective indicators of non-obviousness.)
a predicted intruder physical location of a likely intruder at the premises; (“In some embodiments, the zone device sensor can include the PIR device.” Joseph, Paragraph 13. “The internal positioning system can receive a beacon signal from the smart device … using Wi-Fi triangulation or the like … Then, systems and methods disclosed herein can selectively mask a specific region immediately surrounding the location of the authorized person to determine whether the unauthorized person is within the zone,” indicating one physical location. Joseph, Paragraph 16 and Fig. 1. Also see examples in Nakanelua, Paragraphs 57-58, 95-96, and statement of motivation below.)
determining, by the intrusion detection system, a predicted non-intruder physical location of a person at the premises who is not the likely intruder, wherein the predicted non-intruder physical location comprises different data than the predicted intruder physical location; and (Further, “identify the location of the authorized person within the zone of the secured area, for example, using Wi-Fi triangulation or the like,” data which indicates a different, more precise location within the zone. Joseph, Paragraph 16.)
determining, for at least some sensors from the two or more sensors and using at least some of the location data, distances between the respective sensor and i) the predicted intruder physical location and ii) the predicted non-intruder physical location; (Joseph can determine coarse distances on whether the persons are “within the range of the PIR device … and within the range of the camera” as noted in Joseph, Paragraphs 13-14. Note that these embodiments correspond to the coarseness described in Specification, Paragraphs 13, 159. Cumulatively, Nakanelua determines distances more precisely, for example, “a location on a floor of a venue of the occurrence of the event based on the distance and based on a location of the floor sensor may be identified. The location of the sensor may be known and may be stored in the database.” Nakanelua, Paragraph 96. See statement of motivation below.)
in response to determining the predicted intruder physical location and the predicted non-intruder physical location: … determining, using at least some of the distances, a first sensor within a first threshold distance of the predicted intruder physical location; (Note that the claim does not limit the threshold distance to a particular value. Prior art teaches an example: “when the unauthorized person 110 enters the zone 1000 by tailgating the authorized person 105 into the zone 1000, [both locations are in the zone] … the PIR device 115 or the camera 120 can be activated [selected for activation] responsive to detecting the authorized person 105 and the unauthorized person 106” located in the zone. Joseph, Paragraph 18 and Figs. 1-2B. In this example, the PIR device can be one of the first sensors within a threshold distance to an intruder that is “within the zone and within the range of the PIR.” Joseph, Paragraph 13. Similarly, other sensors can be used within a threshold distances of their fields of view as in Joseph, Paragraph 16 and Haupt, Paragraphs, 8, 13, 48 and Nakanelua, Paragraph 58. See statement of motivation below.)
determining, using at least some of the distances, a second sensor within a second threshold distance of the predicted non-intruder physical location; (For example “when the unauthorized person 110 enters the zone 1000 by tailgating the authorized person 105 into the zone 1000, [both locations are in the zone] … the PIR device 115 or the camera 120 can be activated [selected for activation] responsive to detecting the authorized person 105 and the unauthorized person 106” located in the zone. Joseph, Paragraph 18 and Figs. 1-2B. In this example, the camera can be one of the first sensors within another threshold distance to a non-intruder within the zone “within the zone and within the range of the camera,” which is a different distance. Joseph, Paragraph 13. Similarly, other sensors can be used within a threshold distances of their fields of view as in Joseph, Paragraph 16 and Haupt, Paragraphs, 8, 13, 48 and Nakanelua, Paragraph 58. See statement of motivation below.)
selecting, by the intrusion detection system and from the first sensor and the second sensor, a selected sensor from which to transmit sensor data to another system (For example “identify [select] and save data identifying when and where the unauthorized person is detected within the zone or within the secured area and use such saved data for future forensic analysis, … the video management system 130 [another system] can process the first signal from the PIR device 115 or the camera 120 …” and thus the data captured from the PIR device and/or the camera can be selected and transmitted to processing or storage. Joseph, Paragraphs 12, 18. Joseph, Paragraph 12. Similarly note “detecting and transmitting detection data from one or more detection devices at one or more remote locations to a server via a computer network. The detection data may correspond to detection readings from the various detector devices,” Haupt, Paragraphs 6, 42-43, and statement of motivation above.)
using, for the first sensor and the second sensor, the distances between i) the respective sensor, and ii) the predicted intruder physical location and the predicted non-intruder physical location (This element does not limit the “use.” Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and ordinary skill in the art, the use is in ensuring that the selected sensor data cover the zone within which the unauthorized person is detected, and the zone which includes the location of the authorized person that is detected. Prior art teaches: “when the unauthorized person 110 enters the zone 1000 [location of the intruder] by tailgating the authorized person 105 into the zone 1000 [location of the non-intruder] … the PIR device 115 or the camera 120 can be activated …” Joseph, Paragraph 18. As noted above the PIR or the camera are determined to be within the thresholds of the zone of the event and the field of view of the sensor as in Joseph, Paragraphs 13-14 or within measured locations and distances as in Nakanelua, Paragraphs 57-58, 95-96 and statement of motivation below.)
accessing the sensor data captured by the selected sensor after determining the predicted intruder physical location and (For example “when the unauthorized person 110 enters the zone [predicted intruder location] 1000 by tailgating the authorized person 105 into the zone 1000, [both locations in the zone] … the PIR device 115 or the camera 120 can be activated [selected for activation] responsive to detecting the authorized person 105 and the unauthorized person 106, and … the video management system 130 can process [access] the first signal from the PIR device 115 or the camera 120 …” in the zone. Joseph, Paragraph 18. As noted in Fig. 1, Video management system processes signals from the camera and not the PIR. Thus, the system can activate a camera based on detections by the other sensors, and send the data from the camera for further processing, as in Joseph Paragraph 14. Haupt similarly teaches that a camera can be activated in Paragraph 56.)
providing, by the intrusion detection system and to the other system, the selected data.” (For example “identify [select] and save data identifying when and where the unauthorized person is detected within the zone or within the secured area and use such saved data for future forensic analysis, … the video management system 130 [another system] can process the first signal from the PIR device 115 or the camera 120 …” in the zone. Joseph, Paragraphs 12, 18. Also note that a video can be sent to another system for storage and display as in Haupt, Paragraph 56 and statement of motivation above.)
As noted above, Joseph and Haupt indicate that the locations of sensors and detected events (intruders and non-intruders) are known but do not teach storing and measuring the locations and distances precisely.
Where necessary, Nakanelua teaches storing and measuring precise locations and distances between sensors and detected events: “In an operation 1110, a location on a floor of a venue of the occurrence of the event based on the distance and based on a location of the floor sensor may be identified. The location of the sensor may be known and may be stored in the database.” Nakanelua, Paragraphs 95-96, and also 57-58 and Fig. 5B.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to supplement the teachings of Joseph and Haupt to store precise locations and measure precise distances from the sensors to the detected events as taught in Nakanelua, “in order to gain more information about the event detected.” Nakanelua, Paragraph 57.
Finally, in reviewing the present application, there does not seem to be objective evidence that the claim limitations are particularly directed to: addressing a particular problem which was recognized but unsolved in the art, producing unexpected results at the level of the ordinary skill in the art, or any other objective indicators of non-obviousness.
Regarding Claim 3: “The method of claim 1, wherein:
the predicted intruder physical location comprises a first area at the premises that is monitored by the first sensor from and in which the likely intruder has at least a first threshold likelihood of being located; and (“the zone device sensor can include both the PIR device and the camera [one or more first sensors]. … The internal positioning system can receive a beacon signal from the smart device … determine whether the unauthorized person is within the zone,” and thus withing the area monitored by the “first’ zone device sensor such as a camera, where the reception of a beacon signal and the unauthorized person determination in the zone indicates a likelihood of an intruder being located in the zone. Joseph, Paragraph 16 and Figs 2A-2B.)
the predicted non-intruder physical location comprises a second, different area at the premises that is monitored by the second, different sensor and in which the person at the premises who is not the likely intruder has at least a second threshold likelihood of being located.” (See the PIR, camera, and other sensors operating in one zone in Claim 1. Further, “Known intrusion detection systems include a plurality of sensors in a plurality of zones to protect a secured area.” Joseph, Paragraph 2.)
Regarding Claim 4: “The method of claim 3, wherein the first area and the second area do not overlap.” (The authorized person and the unauthorized person can be detected in the same (overlapping) zone or in a non-overlapping zone. See Joseph, Figs. 2A-2B.)
Regarding Claim 7: “The method of claim 1, wherein selecting the selected sensor comprises selecting as the selected sensor a sensor that is a different sensor than the one or more first sensors that captured the data used to determine the predicted intruder physical location of the likely intruder.” (Examiner notes, as explained in Claim 3, “the authorized person can wear or carry a smart device [example of a second sensor]. The internal positioning system can receive a beacon signal from the smart device [exemplifying a selected sensor] and … identify the location of the authorized person within the zone of the secured area,”. Joseph, Paragraph 16 and Figs 2A-2B. As further noted in Joseph Paragraphs 15-16, the location of the unauthorized person / intruder is determined by the zone device sensors such as a camera and/or a PIR device, which are different sensors shared by the system where if PIR exemplifies of of the first sensors, then the camera exemplifies one of the second sensors.)
Regarding Claim 8. “The method of claim 1, wherein selecting the selected sensor comprises selecting, by the intrusion detection system, the selected sensor from the first sensor and the second sensor using i) the predicted intruder physical location, ii) the predicted non-intruder physical location, and iii) one or more other predicted physical locations each for another person at the premises.” (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and ordinary skill in the art, this claim embodiment operates based on locating at least three people at the premises, including the potential intruder. Prior art teaches this: “determine a number of persons identified within the zone and within range of the zone device sensor … identify a location of each of the persons identified within the zone … identifying the number of authorized persons within the zone … determine whether the unauthorized person is within the zone,” indicating that multiple people can be detected and located on the premises and in the zone. Joseph, Paragraphs 9-10.)
Regarding Claim 9: “The method of claim 1, wherein
the selected sensor comprises a shared sensor, and (See examples of one or more sensors that are shared by the zone detection in Claim 1.)
providing the sensor data comprises providing, to the other system and for the shared sensor, i) the sensor data captured by the shared sensor and (For example, the system may “transmit the second signal 135 to the intruder detection engine 140 to identify that two persons are in the zone 1000” Joseph, Paragraph 18. See additional embodiments in Claim 2.)
ii) data that indicates whether the sensor data captured by the shared sensor is for a first area within a threshold distance of the predicted intruder physical location or for a second area within a second threshold distance of the predicted non-intruder physical location.” (This claim language is unclear. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and ordinary skill in the art, this claim provides an indication that the data is from an area in which an intruder is found (i.e. within some threshold distance that designates the area) or from an area in which an authorized person is found. Prior art provides an example of this: “In some embodiments, when the intruder detection engine determines that the unauthorized person is within the zone, the intruder detection engine can transmit a notification signal to a remote user or to the authorized person in the zone to provide a warning of the risk of the unauthorized person.” Joseph, Paragraph 11. See zones defined by a threshold distance in Figs. 2A-2B. See additional embodiments in Claim 2.)
Regarding Claim 13: “The method of claim 1, comprising:
Joseph does not teach the claim features below.
Haupt teaches the claim features below in the context of sensors distributed on the premises, including security system sensors:
receiving, from the other system, a request to control a device physically located at the premises; (For example, based on viewing the video of the second data the user can request to control the sensor through a user interface: (“In this example, after receiving a notification of a potential intrusion (wherein the sending of the notification was based on the user preferences and configuration of the server 101 ), the user may then be able to login to the server 101 [create/determine a temporary connection] to view additional information regarding the potential intrusion ( e.g., an image taken from a motion activated camera 200, or a sound recorded by an audio sensor 200). … Based on this information, the user may activate remotely certain devices within the home …” Haupt, Paragraph 56. See additional connection means in Haupt, Paragraph 24.)
in response to receiving the request to control the device physically located at the premises, determining whether a temporary connection, between the intrusion detection system to the other system, is available for control of the device; and (“In this example, after receiving a notification of a potential intrusion (wherein the sending of the notification was based on the user preferences and configuration of the server 101 ), the user may then be able to login to the server 101 [create/determine a temporary connection] to view additional information regarding the potential intrusion ( e.g., an image taken from a motion activated camera 200, or a sound recorded by an audio sensor 200). … Based on this information, the user may activate remotely certain devices within the home …” Haupt, Paragraph 56. See additional connection means in Haupt, Paragraph 24.)
in response to receiving the request to control a device physically located at the premises, determining whether a temporary connection, between the intrusion detection system and an emergency communications system and that was created in response to detecting the likely intruder at the premises, is available for control of the device; (“the server 101 [the other system] may provide a user interface ( e.g., web page) to allow authenticated users [a determined permission] to remotely configure sensors 200 and control connected devices and other appliances via the Internet,” and the provision of this user interface indicates that the temporary connection to control the sensors is available to a user. Haupt, Paragraph 56. For example, permission data can be “notifications can take the form of updates to a resource accessible to one or more users” Haupt, Paragraph 51 and Figs. 10-12.)
determining whether permission data for the device indicates that the other system can control the device while the temporary connection is available for control of the device (“the server 101 [the other system] may provide a user interface ( e.g., web page) to allow authenticated users [a determined permission] to remotely configure sensors 200 and control connected devices and other appliances via the Internet,” which establishes a temporary authenticated connection. Haupt, Paragraph 56. For example, permission data can be “notifications can take the form of updates to a resource accessible to one or more users” Haupt, Paragraph 51 and Figs. 10-12.)
in response to determining whether the permission data for the device indicates that the other system can control the device, selectively providing or denying the other system's control of the device.” (“the server 101 may provide a user interface ( e.g., web page) to allow authenticated users to remotely configure sensors 200 and control connected devices and other appliances via the Internet,” thus selectively providing control to the user system. Haupt, Paragraph 56 and Figs. 10-12.)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to supplement the teachings of Joseph to perform the above sensor access functionality as taught in Haupt, in order “to allow authenticated users to remotely configure sensors 200 and control connected devices and other appliances via the Internet.” Haupt, Paragraph 56.
Finally, in reviewing the present application, there does not seem to be objective evidence that the claim limitations are particularly directed to: addressing a particular problem which was recognized but unsolved in the art, producing unexpected results at the level of the ordinary skill in the art, or any other objective indicators of non-obviousness.
Regarding Claim 14. “The method of claim 1, wherein determining the predicted non-intruder physical location comprises determining the predicted non-intruder physical location using data captured by the second sensor.” (For example, the second sensor can be a PIR, or a camera, or another sensor used to “identify the location of the authorized person within the zone of the secured area, for example, using Wi-Fi [data captured by a sensor] triangulation or the like.” Joseph, Paragraph 16.)
Regarding Claim 15: “The method of claim 1, wherein determining the predicted non-intruder physical location comprises determining the predicted non-intruder physical location using location information received from a device operated by the person at the premises who is not the likely intruder.” (For example, “the authorized person can wear or carry a smart device. The internal positioning system can receive a beacon signal from the smart device and access the building information model of the secured area to identify the location of the authorized person within the zone of the secured area, for example, using Wi-Fi triangulation or the like.” Joseph, Paragraph 16.)
Claim 17: “A system comprising one or more computers and one or more storage devices on which are stored instructions that are operable, when executed by the one or more computers, to cause the one or more computers to perform operations comprising: …” is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 1, and because prior art teaches: “a respective programmable processor, and respective executable control software as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The respective executable control software can be stored on a transitory or non-transitory computer readable medium … and the respective executable control software can execute and control some or all of the methods disclosed herein.” Joseph, Paragraph 19.)
Claim 19 is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 3 in view of the Claim 17 rejection.
Claim 20: “One or more non-transitory computer storage media encoded with instructions that, when executed by one or more computers, cause the one or more computers to perform operations comprising: …” is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 1, and because prior art teaches: “a respective programmable processor, and respective executable control software as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The respective executable control software can be stored on a transitory or non-transitory computer readable medium … and the respective executable control software can execute and control some or all of the methods disclosed herein.” Joseph, Paragraph 19.)
Regarding Claim 21: “The method of claim 1, comprising:
Joseph does not teach the claim features below.
Haupt teaches the claim features below in the context of sensors distributed on the premises, including security system sensors:
receiving, from the other system, to which the sensor data is provided, a request to control a device physically located at the premises (For example, based on viewing the video of the second data the user can request to control the sensor through a user interface: (“In this example, after receiving a notification of a potential intrusion (wherein the sending of the notification was based on the user preferences and configuration of the server 101 ), the user may then be able to login to the server 101 [create/determine a temporary connection] to view additional information regarding the potential intrusion ( e.g., an image taken from a motion activated camera 200, or a sound recorded by an audio sensor 200). … Based on this information, the user may activate remotely certain devices within the home …” Haupt, Paragraph 56. See additional connection means in Haupt, Paragraph 24.)
during a time period when the likely intruder is at the premises; (“In other examples, a home monitoring system may have motion detectors and sound detection sensors 200 that would alert the central server 101vto potential intrusions. In this example, after receiving a notification of a potential intrusion (wherein the sending of the notification was based on the user preferences and configuration of the server 101 ), the user may then be able to login to the server 101 to view additional information regarding the potential intrusion ( e.g., an image taken from a motion activated camera 200, or a sound recorded by an audio sensor 200).” Haupt, Paragraph 56.)
in response to receiving the request to control the device physically located at the premises during the time period when the likely intruder is at the premises, … determining a role for a person operating the other system; and… determining, using the role for the person operating the other system, whether permission data for the device indicates that the other system can control the device; and (“the server 101 may provide a user interface ( e.g., web page) to allow authenticated users to remotely configure sensors 200 and control connected devices and other appliances via the Internet.” Haupt, Paragraph 56. Thus if the persons role is determined to be that of an authenticated user, this is sufficient permission to control the devices.
“users may configure the server 101 to control sensors 200” thus setting up the roles and the permission data required to control the devices remotely. Haupt, Paragraph 56.)
in response to determining whether the permission data for the device indicates that the other system can control the device, selectively providing or denying the other system's control of the device during the time period when the likely intruder is at the premises.” (“In other examples, a home monitoring system may have motion detectors and sound detection sensors 200 that would alert the central server 101 to potential intrusions. In this example, after receiving a notification of a potential intrusion (wherein the sending of the notification was based on the user preferences and configuration of the server 101 ), the user may then be able to login to the server 101 to view additional information regarding the potential intrusion ( e.g., an image taken from a motion activated camera 200, or a sound recorded by an audio sensor 200). … in certain examples, the user interface of the server 101 may support functionality for users to directly control sensors 200 and/or appliances and device integrated with receivers 300 remotely.” Haupt, Paragraph 56.)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to supplement the teachings of Joseph to perform the above sensor access functionality as taught in Haupt, in order “to allow authenticated users to remotely configure sensors 200 and control connected devices and other appliances via the Internet.” Haupt, Paragraph 56.
Finally, in reviewing the present application, there does not seem to be objective evidence that the claim limitations are particularly directed to: addressing a particular problem which was recognized but unsolved in the art, producing unexpected results at the level of the ordinary skill in the art, or any other objective indicators of non-obviousness.
Regarding Claim 22: “The media of claim 20, the operations comprising: determining a type of an emergency event at the premises that involves the likely intruder, wherein selecting the sensor data uses the type of emergency event.” (This claim does not define the types of emergency event and Specification does not provide any further information on this. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and ordinary skill in the art, the types of emergency event can be intruder type events and non-intruder type events. See Specification, Paragraphs 29, 70. As noted in Claim 20 and Claim 1, the prior art detects the intrusion type events and provides and selects sensors and resulting sensor data based on the intrusion type event.)
Regarding Claim 24: “The method of claim 1, wherein selecting the selected sensor comprises: selecting the first sensor that is closest to the predicted intruder physical location.” (This claim indicates selecting the first sensor out of the first and second sensors selected in Claim 1. For example, “the first signal received from the PIR device to determine the number of persons within the zone and within the range of the PIR device,” rather than a second sensor such as a camera. See Joseph, Paragraphs 9, 13 and Fig. 1. In this example since the zone is covered specifically by this PIR device, it is the closest of the PIR sensors. In another embodiment, the first sensor can be a camera of the zone as in Joseph, Paragraphs 9, 14 which is similar to the embodiment in Specification Paragraph 32 and Fig. 1A.)
Claims 2, 10-12, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190206208 to Joseph (“Joseph”) in view of US 20190278441 to Haupt (“Haupt”) in view of US 20210067590 Nakanelua (“Nakanelua”).and further in view of US 20180033273 to Siminoff (“Siminoff”).
Regarding Claim 2: “The method of claim 1,
the person at the premises who is not the likely intruder is a first responder; and (Note that this element seems to declare an assumption but does not limit the claimed method to performing a particular step. Note that Joseph uses “the third signal from the access control system 145 identifying one authorized person being in the zone 1000,” who could be an authorized first responder. See a similar possibility in Siminoff, Paragraph 101.)
wherein providing the sensor data comprises providing, by the intrusion detection system and to the other system operated by the person at the premises who is not the likely intruder, the sensor data that were selected using both i) the predicted intruder physical location and ii) the predicted non-intruder physical location.” (“For example, in some embodiments, the intruder detection engine 140 can transmit the notification signal to the authorized person 105 or to other authorized persons to alert all of the authorized persons within the secured area of the potential threat of the unauthorized person 110” which is based on processed sensor data. Joseph, Paragraph 18.
Joseph does not teach that the notification signal necessarily includes direct sensor data, such as a video captured by a camera.
Siminoff teaches the above claim feature in the context of security surveillance system: “the user may receive a notification on his or her client device 114 … The notification at the user's client device 114 may include the live streaming audio and/or video” Siminoff, Paragraphs 100-101.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to supplement the teachings of Joseph to providing data captured by one of the security sensors (such as a video captured by a camera) to another system operated by a person, as taught in Siminoff, in order to alert the person to a potential intruder and to let the user identify the potential intruder and/or to communicate with the potential intruder. Siminoff, Paragraphs 100-101.
Finally, in reviewing the present application, there does not seem to be objective evidence that the claim limitations are particularly directed to: addressing a particular problem which was recognized but unsolved in the art, producing unexpected results at the level of the ordinary skill in the art, or any other objective indicators of non-obviousness.
Regarding Claim 10: “The method of claim 1,
wherein providing the sensor data comprises providing, by the intrusion detection system and to the other system using a temporary connection that expires after a time period, the sensor data,” (“The user may view the visitor throughout the duration [time period] of the call,” Siminoff, Paragraphs 93, 102. See statement of motivation in Claim 2.)
“the method comprising: … after providing the sensor data, determining, using third data for the time period, whether to disable the temporary connection; and … in response to determining to disable the temporary connection, disabling the temporary connection between the intrusion detection system and the other system.” (As noted above, the video connection is terminated at the endo of the call. Further: “At the end of the call, the user may terminate the connection [by means of user interface data] between the user's client device 114 and the floodlight controller 100 and the session ends at block B148.” Siminoff, Paragraphs 93, 102. See various means for providing the user interface signals in Paragraph 160. See statement of motivation in Claim 2.)
Regarding Claim 11. “The method of claim 10, comprising determining a duration for the time period using at least one of a predicted intrusion type or the first data captured by the one or more sensors that are physically located at the premises.” (In Siminoff, the user determines how long the data is transmitted based on the intrusion type: “The user may view the visitor throughout the duration [time period] of the call, … If the user denies the notification, then the process advances to block B146, where the audio and/or video data is recorded and stored at a cloud server. The session then ends at block B148 and the connection between the floodlight controller 100 and the user's client device 114 is terminated. … If, however, the user accepts the notification, then at block B150 the user communicates with the visitor/intruder through the user's client device 114 while audio and/or video data captured by the camera 104, the microphone 106, and/or other devices/sensors is/are streamed to the user's client device 114. At the end of the call, the user may terminate the connection between the user's client device 114 and the floodlight controller 100 and the session ends at block B148.” Siminoff, Paragraphs 93, 102. See statement of motivation in Claim 2.)
Regarding Claim 12. “The method of claim 10, comprising: determining that an emergency event will not likely end by an end of the time period; and in response to determining that the emergency event will not likely end by the end of the time period, extending a duration for the time period.” (In Siminoff, the user determines how long the data is transmitted based on the intrusion type, and can extend the transmission for as long as required to use the call system: “The user may view the visitor throughout the duration [time period] of the call, … If the user denies the notification, then the process advances to block B146, where the audio and/or video data is recorded and stored at a cloud server. The session then ends at block B148 and the connection between the floodlight controller 100 and the user's client device 114 is terminated. … If, however, the user accepts the notification, then at block B150 the user communicates with the visitor/intruder through the user's client device 114 while audio and/or video data captured by the camera 104, the microphone 106, and/or other devices/sensors is/are streamed to the user's client device 114. At the end of the call, the user may terminate the connection between the user's client device 114 and the floodlight controller 100 and the session ends at block B148.” Siminoff, Paragraphs 93, 102. See statement of motivation in Claim 2.)
Regarding Claim 16: “The method of claim 1, wherein: … determining the predicted intruder physical location of the likely intruder comprises determining that a first likelihood that the likely intruder is at the predicted intruder physical location satisfies a threshold likelihood, … the method comprising: after providing, to the other system, the sensor data; determining, by the intrusion detection system, whether a second likelihood that the likely intruder is at the predicted intruder physical location no longer satisfies the threshold likelihood; and … stopping, by the intrusion detection system, the provision to the other system of additional data captured by a sensor that was selected using the predicted intruder physical location and the predicted non-intruder physical location in response to determining that the second likelihood that the likely intruder is at the predicted intruder physical location no longer satisfies the threshold likelihood.” (For example, “when the unauthorized person 110 enters the zone 1000 by tailgating the authorized person 105 into the zone 1000, [satisfying the first threshold likelihood] … the camera 120 can be activated responsive to detecting [event subsequent to satisfying the first threshold likelihood] the authorized person 105 and the unauthorized person 106, and … the intrusion detection system 125 or the video management system 130 can process the first signal from the PIR device 115 or the camera 120 to determine the number of persons as well as locations of the persons” which can be further used to determine likelihood of the intruder now based on video analytics Joseph, Paragraphs 18, 14, and Fig. 1.
This indicates that the converse is true, when after a search an unauthorized person is not detected (within the threshold of detection) in the zone/location identified by the sensors such as the camera or the PIR, then PIR and the camera are not further activated.)
Although Joseph does not explicitly state that the intruder detection process is stopped, it is well understood in the art that the camera sensors in the zone are deactivated (stopped or disarmed) if the detection conditions are not satisfied, such as when a potential intruder is no longer detected in the zone, or when the potential intruder is determined to be authorized, or when detection is terminated by an authorized user: “each of the plurality of zones in the secured area is disarmed.” Joseph, Paragraph 2. Similarly see termination of the security process B143 in Siminoff, Fig. 2 and statement of motivation in Claim 2.)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIKHAIL ITSKOVICH whose telephone number is (571)270-7940. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thu. 9am - 8pm.
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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at (571)272-7383. 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.
/MIKHAIL ITSKOVICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483