RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT
This communication is responsive to the amendment filed 20-May-2026 with respect to application 18/155,063 filed 11-April-2023.
Applicant has amended claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 14 and 20, cancelled claims 10 and 11 and has added new claims 22 and 23.
Claims 2-9 and 12-23 are currently pending.
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 2-4, 7-9, 12 and 13 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 USC §103(a) as unpatentable over Staton et al. (United States Patent Application Publication # US 2006/0099969 A1), hereinafter Staton, in view of Madau (United States Patent # US 6,593,856 B1).
Consider claim 2: A method, Staton discloses a system and method to monitor persons using wireless media such as a PDA (mobile asset) including tracking the person’s location and measuring parameters associated with the environment of the monitored person, which may include a vehicle, home or workplace (property) [Title; Abstract; Fig. 8A, 8B; Para. 0006-0008, 0014, 0019-0020, 0039]; comprising:
accessing, for a property, vehicle location data for a vehicle associated with a property; portable devices (such as a PDA) may be supplied to a plurality of individuals, both monitored and monitoring, and associated with one or more geographical areas (such as the home, and particularly with a vehicle) [Para. 0006, 0008, 0010, 0014, 0020, 0039]; and particularly that location of the mobile devices and associated users (assets) may be associated with a vehicle, and tracked based on reported location [Fig. 1, 2B, 8B; Para. 0040, 0045, 0082, 0185-0186];
accessing sensor data generated by one or more sensors physically located at the property; portable devices (PDA) associated with individuals present within a home or workplace may communicate with sensors to detect various parameters of the local environment (such as the home), including a fire detector, appliances such as a television, or measure air quality, carbon monoxide, smog, smoke, oxygen level or temperature, [Fig. 8B; Para. 0014, 0019, 0183, 0185-0189];
detecting an event for the property using the sensor data; wherein an event may be based on reaching a measurement threshold (which may be by a sensor at the property) [Para 0084]; and
in response to detecting the event for the property:
determining whether a rule for the property permits a change of state of a monitoring system for the property when the vehicle does not satisfy a threshold distance from the property; and
in response to determining that the rule for the property does not permit a change of state of a monitoring system for the property when the vehicle does not satisfy the threshold distance from the property;
generating an alert for the event including information about the event and indicating denial of the change of state of the monitoring system for the property using the rule for the property; the vehicle location data, and the sensor data; wherein an event may be determined based on rules using a combination of GPS position (location) of a portable device (vehicle) with information such as any measurements (sensor information) received from an instrument module [Para. 0043, 0082-0084]; and
performing an action for the property comprising determining to not change the state of the monitoring system for the property; wherein Staton further discloses configurable operations that execute in response to a determined event [Para. 0018, 0044, 0063, 0199-0201].
Staton discloses that determination of an event may be based on a combination of a PDA GPS location (such as associated with a vehicle) and a sensed measurement threshold according to a rule as may be determined by a user [Para. 0082-0084], but does not specifically disclose: (a) determining whether a rule permits a change in state at the property based on a threshold distance of the vehicle from the property, generating an alert if permission is denied, and (c) not changing monitoring system state when permission is denied. These are known in analogous prior art, however, and for example:
Madau discloses a homebound/outbound feature for automotive applications [Title; Abstract; Fig. 1-3; Col. 1, 56 to Col. 2, 18], and particularly that a user may set one or more rules to make particular changes in a home automation system, associated with outgoing and incoming vehicle controls (22, 24) and which may include activating/deactivating a security system, and which may be also based on a satisfaction of a particular vehicle distance threshold, where the system may perform (or not) the particular actions defined by the rules based on a satisfaction of a particular vehicle distance threshold. Madau also discloses that status of the home systems (changes made or not) may be communicated by the home system and displayed on a vehicle display (26) [Fig. 1-3; Col. 2, 33 to Col. 4, 25].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing for the invention to provide a system in which selected home automation changes may be made in homecoming or outgoing direction only when a user vehicle reaches a threshold distance from the home, and does not perform the changes if the distance threshold requirement is not met, and which communicates with the vehicle such that changes in status (or not) are displayed to a user, as taught by Madau and applied to a system and method to monitor persons and associated properties, as taught by Staton, in order that a number of status changes may be simply and automatically made, and where certain changes (such as a change in temperature) may take time to realize, so that it is useful for control to be activated some time prior to arrival or after departure.
Consider claim 3 and as applied to claim 2: The method of claim 2, comprising detecting a vehicle event using the vehicle location data, wherein detecting the event for the vehicle and the property uses the vehicle event.
Staton discloses the use of geofencing software allowing a user to define geographical zone with respect to a monitored person (vehicle or at home) and where violation of geofenced rules is an event [Fig. 7, 8B; Para. 0046; 0180-0182], and that an event may be determined based on rules using a combination of GPS position (location) of a portable device (vehicle) with information such as any measurements (sensor information) received from an instrument module [Para. 0043-0045, 0082-0084].
Madau discloses homebound and outbound changes implemented only when a predetermined distance from home is reached [Col. 3, 23-43].
Consider claim 4 and as applied to claim 3: The method of claim 3, wherein:
detecting the vehicle event comprises detecting, using the vehicle location data, the vehicle entering or leaving a geofence; Staton specifically discloses events based on mobile devices entering or departing geofenced zones [Para. 0046, 0095-0097, 0182, 0202], and
performing the action for the property is responsive to detecting the event for the vehicle and the property using the detection of the vehicle entering or leaving the geofence; wherein operations at the property may be performed based on a mobile device entering or departing the geofence [Para. 0201]; and where it would have been obvious that such geofence may define a proximate distance threshold from the user property.
Consider claim 7 and as applied to claim 3: The method of claim 3, wherein performing the action comprises triggering an alarm for the property using the sensor data and vehicle location data in response to detecting the event for the vehicle or the property.
Stanton discloses that actions performed in response to an event, may include notification or alarm in various forms [Para. 0018, 0159, 0180, 0187, 0189], and where such an alarm may alert property personnel that a delivery vehicle has arrived.
Consider claim 8 and as applied to claim 3: The method of claim 3, wherein performing the action comprises causing presentation of an audible alert at the property in response to detecting the event for the vehicle or the property.
Stanton discloses that actions performed in response to an event, may include notification or alarm in various forms, particularly audible forms such as a siren [Para. 0097], and for example, to alert property personnel that a delivery vehicle has arrived with a particular load.
Consider claim 9 and as applied to claim 3: The method of claim 3, wherein generating the alert for the event comprises:
in response to detecting the event for the vehicle or the property, generating an alert with information about the event; Staton discloses embodiments in which tasks and events are monitored at one or more work sites, and wherein the delivery of various material according to a schedule is also monitored, the approach of such material may be determined (as an event) based on tracking with respect to one or more geofences, and where information to trigger preconfigure operations relating to special equipment and personnel requirements [Fig 9, 10; Para. 0198-0199]; and
providing the alert to a device for the property; and where when notified of the delivery vehicle approach, various property preparatory actions may occur (such as opening a gate) [Para. 0196-0199].
Madau discloses that status of the home systems (alerts) may be communicated by the home system and displayed on a vehicle display (26) [Fig. 1-3; Col. 6-25].
Consider claim 12 and as applied to claim 9: The method of claim 9, wherein providing the alert to the device for the property comprises:
determining, for each of two or more devices for the property, a level of control for the respective device; and
selecting, using the levels of control and from the two or more devices, the device to which to provide the alert.
Staton discloses an embodiment in which different mobile devices (parent and child) may be configured differently, and for tracking event alerts sent to a device according to the configurations [Para. 0189], and where it would have been obvious that a similar arrangement may be made with respect to a foreman and dockworker in the context of a delivery vehicle and property.
Consider claim 13 and as applied to claim 2: The method of claim 2, comprising receiving data indicating permission to use the vehicle location data for detecting an event for the property, wherein accessing the vehicle location data for the vehicle occurs as a result of the data indicating permission to use the vehicle location data for detecting an event for the property. Staton specifically discloses the use of permissions for tracking or monitoring assets or to configure operation and receive notifications [Fig. 7; Para. 0168-0169].
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 USC §103(a) as unpatentable over Staton et al. (United States Patent Application Publication # US 2006/0099969 A1), hereinafter Staton, and Madau (United States Patent # US 6,593,856 B1), further in view of Jentoft (United States Patent Application Publication # US 2007/0063840 A1).
Consider claim 5 and as applied to claim 2: The method of claim 2, wherein accessing the sensor data comprises accessing camera data generated by a camera included in the one or more sensors physically located at the property.
Neither Staton nor Madau disclose the use of a camera or video capture device for property or mobile device monitoring. This was well known in analogous prior art, however, and for example:
Jentoft discloses a security monitoring arrangement and method using a common field of view[Title; Abstract; [Fig. 1A, 1B; Para. 0002, 0007-0008] and particularly the integration of cameras and motion sensors to monitor, identify and track objects [[Fig. 1A, 1B; Para. 0021-0023].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use an integrated apparatus comprising cameras and motion sensors as a monitoring device as taught by Jentoft and applied to a system and method of monitoring persons as taught by Staton, as modified by Madau, where an integrated sensor may determine the presence, identity, location and path of an object or person.
Consider claim 6 and as applied to claim 2: The method of claim 2, wherein accessing the sensor data comprises accessing motion data generated by a motion sensor included in the one or more sensors physically located at the property.
Staton discloses that a PDA (mobile device may monitor events related to motion [Para. 0007, 0064] but does not explicitly disclose the use of motion sensors for property monitoring. This was well known in analogous prior art, however, and for example:
Jentoft discloses a security monitoring arrangement and method using a common field of view[Title; Abstract; [Fig. 1A, 1B; Para. 0002, 0007-0008] and particularly the integration of cameras and motion sensors to monitor, identify and track objects [[Fig. 1A, 1B; Para. 0021-0023].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use an integrated apparatus comprising cameras and motion sensors as a monitoring device as taught by Jentoft and applied to a system and method of monitoring persons as taught by Staton, as modified by Madau, where an integrated sensor may determine the presence, identity, location and path of an object or person.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-23 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 20-May-2026 have been carefully and fully considered by the Examiner, and responses are provided as follow:
Consider Applicant’s remarks with respect to the rejection of claims 2-7, 9-12, 14-19 and 21 for non-statutory double patenting [Remarks: page 8]: Applicant amendment of independent claims 2, 14 and 21 obviate these rejections, and the rejections have been withdrawn.
Consider Applicant’s remarks with respect to the rejection of claims 2-21 under 35 USC §112, first paragraph for lack of written description support [Remarks: page 8]: Applicant amendment of independent claims 2, 14, and 21 obviates these rejections, and the rejections have been withdrawn.
Consider Applicant’s remarks with respect to the rejection of claims 2-4, 7-16 and 19-21 under 35 USC §103 over Staton (US 2006/0099969 A1) and Dorenbosch (US2008/0108301 A1) [Remarks: page 8-10]:
Regarding independent claim 2: Applicant arguments assert that neither Stanton nor Dorenbosch teach all limitations of the claim as presently amended. The arguments have been considered, but are rendered moot by a new rejection of the claim under 35 USC §103 over Staton and Madau (US 6,593,856 B1), based on the citations and analysis presented in this Office action.
Regarding claims 3, 4, 7-9, 12 and 13: No separate or additional arguments have been made with respect to these claims, and allowability asserted based on the alleged allowability of base claim 2. These claims are now also rejected under 35 USC §103 over Staton and Madau, based on the new rejection of the base claim, and on the particular citations and analysis presented for each in this Office action.
Regarding claims 10 and 11: Arguments with respect to these claims are moot, they have been cancelled by the Applicant.
Regarding claims 14-16 and 19-23: Arguments with respect to these claims are moot, they have been allowed.
Consider Applicant’s remarks with respect to the rejection of claims 5, 6, 17 and 18 under 35 USC §103 over Staton, Dorenbosch and Jentoft (US 2007/0063840 A1) [Remarks: page 11]:
Regarding claims 5 and 6: No separate or additional arguments have been made with respect to these claims, and allowability asserted based on the alleged allowability of base claim 2. These claims are now rejected under 35 USC §103 over Staton, Madau and Jentoft, based on the new rejection of the base claim, and on the particular citations and analysis presented for each in this Office action.
Regarding claims 17 and 18: Arguments with respect to these claims are moot, they have been allowed.
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Winick et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # US 2005/0128068 A1) disclosing a home security system with vehicle interface, and remote vehicle monitor.
Iketani Kaoru et al. (Japan Patent Application Publication # JP 2004054703 A) disclosing a mobile healthcare method.
7. 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.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to STEPHEN R. BURGDORF whose telephone number is (571)270-7328. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7:30 to 5:00 EST.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached on (571)272-3114. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
/STEPHEN R BURGDORF/ Examiner, Art Unit 2685
Prosecution Insights