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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on March 16, 2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Response to Amendment
The amendment to the claims received on March 16, 2026 has been entered.
The amendment of claims 1, 11 and 20 is acknowledged.
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[l- 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, 5, 7, 8, 11, 15, 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis’394 (US 10,229,394), and further in view of Yalcin’685 (US 2021/0110685).
With respect to claim 11, Davis’394 teaches an apparatus [regarding to the smart home controller in Fig.3], comprising:
one or more network interfaces [as shown in Fig.3, the smart home controller communicates with a piece of home equipment and a repair service provider server. Therefore, the smart home controller is inherent disclosed with one or more network interfaces to perform communication with a piece of home equipment and a repair service provider server];
a processor [regarding to the microprocessor (Fig.1, item 228)] coupled to the one or more network interfaces and configured to execute one or more processes [the microprocessor (Fig.1, item 228) is considered to control the communication with a piece of home equipment and a repair service provider server via the one or more network interface]; and
a memory (Fig.1, items 226 and 230) configured to store a process that is executable by the processor, the process when executed configured to operate as an add-on observer or auditor of a surveillance system [as shown in Fig.3, the smart home controller is operated as add-on observer or auditor of a piece of home equipment (col.7, lines 60-62)]:
obtain characteristic data of the surveillance system (Fig.3, step 302);
inspect the characteristic data of the surveillance system to identify an artificial intelligence-based service that analyzes surveillance data captured by the surveillance system by detecting usage of at least one artificial intelligence library or at least one application programming interface call associated with the artificial intelligence-based service [the set of conditions associated with the home equipment are being obtained and then to use the said set of conditions to compare the received sensor data to determine if the home equipment is abnormal (Fig.3, steps 304 and 306)];
generating by the device and based on identification of the artificial intelligence-based server, an alert indicative of how the surveillance data captured by the surveillance system is being used for a specific artificial intelligence driven function [the received sensor data is being used to perform the diagnostic operation in the smart home controller to generate and provide notification to a repair service provider server for requesting repairing service (Fig.3, steps 302, 306, 308 and 310]; and
provide the alert for presentation to one or more individuals associated with the surveillance data (Fig.3, step 310), wherein the alert is provided in real-time to subjects within a field of view the surveillance system [security cameras are one type of smart devises (col.4, lines 35 and 36). Therefore, a notification including the diagnostic information is considered being provided while the security cameras are also in service].
Davis’394 does not teach wherein the characteristic data comprises data-based indicator of surveillance system operation indicative of whether a microphone of the surveillance system is capturing audio of subjects under surveillance by inspection of at least one of network traffic data, library usage data, or permission data associated with surveillance system components.
Yalcin’685 teaches wherein the characteristic data comprises data-based indicator of surveillance system operation indicative of whether a microphone of the surveillance system is capturing audio of subjects under surveillance by inspection of at least one of network traffic data, library usage data, or permission data associated with surveillance system components (Fig.5, and paragraphs 21 and 46-51).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Davis’394 according the teaching of Yalcin’685 to utilize a microphone to capture the status tones, unintended sounds and vibrations from the home equipment and then to transmit the captured status tones, unintended sounds and vibrations to the smart home controller because this will allow the home equipment to diagnose the failures in the home equipment more effectively.
With respect to claim 15, which further limits claim 11, Davis’394 teaches wherein the alert is provided for display by a display located in a location associated with the surveillance data [the repair service provider display routine displays information for the home equipment experience failure (col.11, lines 1-11)].
With respect to claim 17, which further limits claim 11, Davis’394 teaches wherein the characteristic data is indicative of one or more libraries used by the surveillance system [the smart home controller obtains set pf conditions for the type of home equipment according to the received sensor data and compares sensor data to equipment condition in steps 304 and 306 of (col.12, lines 36-64). Therefore, the received sensor data (characteristic data) is considered to indicative of one or more libraries used by the home equipment (the surveillance system)].
With respect to claim 18, which further limits claim 11, Davis’394 teaches wherein the alert indicates that the surveillance data is being used for at least one of: facial recognition, person reidentification, object tracking, person counting, or anomaly detection [the smart home controller obtains set pf conditions for the type of home equipment according to the received sensor data and compares sensor data to equipment condition in steps 304 and 306 of (col.12, lines 36-64).].
With respect to claims 1, 5, 7 and 8, they are method claims that claim how the apparatus of claims 11, 15, 17 and 18 to monitor a surveillance system. Claims 1, 5, 7 and 8 are analyzed and rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of claims 11, 15, 17 and 18.
With respect to claim 20, it is a method claim that claims how the apparatus of claims 11 to executed to monitor a surveillance system. Claim 20 is analyzed and rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of claim 11.
Claims 2-4 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis’394 (US 10,229,394), Yalcin’685 (US 2021/0110685) and further in view of Marcinkowshi’880 (US 10,361,880).
With respect to claim 12, which further limits claim 11, the combination of Davis’394 and Yalcin’685 does not teach wherein the characteristic data is indicative of network traffic associated with the surveillance system.
Marcinkowshi’880 teaches wherein the characteristic data is indicative of network traffic associated with the surveillance system [the recording information generated from a video camera and/or a microphone is being transmitted to the central note (col. 19, lines 50-55)]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Davis’394 and Yalcin’685 according to the teaching of Marcinkowshi’880 to provide the recording information generated from a video camera and/or a microphone to the smart home controller because this will allow the smart home controller to notify the detected even to a user more effectively.
With respect to claim 13, which further limits claim 12, the combination of Davis’394 and Yalcin’685 does not teach wherein the characteristic data is indicative of the network traffic comprising audio data.
Marcinkowshi’880 teaches wherein the characteristic data is indicative of the network traffic comprising audio data [the recording information generated from a video camera and/or a microphone is being transmitted to the central note (col. 19, lines 50-55)]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Davis’394 and Yalcin’685 according to the teaching of Marcinkowshi’880 to provide the recording information generated from a video camera and/or a microphone to the smart home controller because this will allow the smart home controller to notify the detected even to a user more effectively.
With respect to claim 14, which further limits claim 12, the combination of Davis’394 and Yalcin’685 does not teach wherein the characteristic data is indicative of the network traffic comprising a particular application programming interface (API) call associated with the artificial intelligence-based service.
Marcinkowshi’880 teaches wherein the characteristic data is indicative of the network traffic comprising a particular application programming interface (API) call associated with the artificial intelligence-based service [the central node transmits the notifications to the mobile devices according to the received alert (col. 19, lines 44-49). Therefore, the received alert is considered to is indicative of the network traffic comprising a particular application programming interface (API) call associated with an artificial intelligence-based service].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Davis’394 and Yalcin’685 according to the teaching of Marcinkowshi’880 to provide the recording information generated from a video camera and/or a microphone to the smart home controller because this will allow the smart home controller to notify the detected even to a user more effectively.
With respect to claims 2-4, they are method claims that claim how the apparatus of claims 12-14 to monitor a surveillance system. Claims 2-4 are analyzed and rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of claims 12-14.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis’394 (US 10,229,394), Yalcin’685 (US 2021/0110685), and further in view of Elimalech’850 (US 2016/0342850).
With respect to claim 10, which further limits claim 12, the combination of Davis’394 and Yalcin’685 does not teach
wherein the alert is provided as part of a map.
Elimalech’850 teaches wherein the alert is provided as part of a map.
[regarding to the location information (paragraph 62)]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Davis’394 and Yalcin’685 according to the teaching of Elimalech’850 to provide the reports including the location of the even being detected by a senor because this will allow the smart home controller to notify the detected even to a user more effectively.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis’394 (US 10,229,394), Yalcin’685 (US 2021/0110685), and further in view of Park’860 (US 2014/0145860).
With respect to claim 16, which further limits claim 11, the combination of Davis’394 and Yalcin’685 does not teach wherein the characteristic data is indicative of a schedule at which the surveillance data is sent to the artificial intelligence-based service for analysis.
Park’860 teaches wherein the characteristic data is indicative of a schedule at which the surveillance data is sent to the artificial intelligence-based service for analysis (paragraph 86).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Davis’394 and Yalcin’685 according to the teaching of Park’860 to enable the smart home controller periodically to collect the information of a piece of home equipment because this will allow the smart home controller to manage the home equipment more effectively.
With respect to claim 6, it is a method claim that claims how the apparatus of claim 16 to monitor a surveillance system. Claim 6 is analyzed and rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of claims 16.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis’394 (US 10,229,394), Yalcin’685 (US 2021/0110685), and further in view of Heller’914 (US 2014/0159914).
With respect to claim 19, which further limits claim 11, the combination of Davis’394 and Yalcin’685 does not wherein the alert is provided as part of a compliance report for the surveillance system.
Heller’914 teaches wherein the alert is provided as part of a compliance report for the surveillance system [a notification is being generated responding to the sensor reading values (paragraphs 55 and 56) and the compliance report associated with the sensor reading (paragraph 60). The notification is considered as part of a compliance report for the sensor since notification is considered to alert the user when reading of the senor is abnormal which is a part of compliance report].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Davis’394 and Yalcin’685 according to the teaching of Heller’914 to provide a compliance report having the alert information because this will allow the smart home controller to manage the home equipment more effectively.
With respect to claim 9, it is a method claim that claims how the apparatus of claim 19 to monitor a surveillance system. Claim 9 is analyzed and rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of claims 19.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUO LONG CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3759. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9am - 5pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tieu, Benny can be reached on (571) 272-7490. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HUO LONG CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682
Prosecution Insights