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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 8 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.
Claims 9-15 are allowed.
Response to Amendment
Applicants argues that the Martin fails to disclose the activation of the warning modules, with the visual and audio warning, by the personal fob carried by the user. Martin discloses the activation of a security system through monitoring of a wireless tag
Martin teaches active tags, see [0006] and [0026]. However, even if Martin only taught passive RFID tags, this limitation would still be taught in Martin. The claim language requires that “the user engages the personal Fob to activate the warning module”. The security system in Martin uses a base station which activates the alarm components which are used for alerting people to dangerous events, see [0024]. In Martin, the user activates the base station of the security system by carrying with him a passive or active RFID tag and providing a valid biometric signal, see [0026] and [0028]. When the user does not carry the RFID tag, the security system remains in an inactivated state. Therefore, the user must “engage” with the tag by carrying it with him (and activating the tag when using an active tag) in order to activate the security system. When the security system is activated, the alarm components, which function as the applicant’s warning module, are activated for use in the security system.
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 1, 2, and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin et al. (US Pub No. 2007/0198850) And Vazirani (US Pub No. 2019/0035242).
Regarding claim 1, Martin teaches a residential security system and method configured to provide security at a place of residence (See abstract and [0008]) wherein the method comprises the steps of:
installing a control module, said control module having necessary electronics to store, receive, transmit and manipulate data, said control module providing operation of the residential security system (See abstract, [0024], [0031], and Fig. 3, 140 – Base Station);
mounting at least one camera, said at least one camera being mounted at the place of residence, said at least one camera being communicably coupled to said control module (See [0030] and Fig. 3 240 - Camera);
pairing at least one personal fob, wherein the at least one personal fob is communicably coupled to said control module utilizing wireless communications, said at least one personal fob configured to activate the security system on demand (See abstract and [0026]);
connecting said control module to a database, said database having facial imagery data (See [0031] and [0062]);
activating the residential security system, wherein a user activates the residential security system to monitor a residence (See [0045]);
activating an alarm via the personal fob, wherein the user engages the personal fob to activate the warning module (See [0045]);
notifying a third party, wherein ensuing the activation of the alarm the control module utilizes a transceiver to transmit a signal to the third party (See [0024]); and
wherein said video data includes facial imagery of individuals within range of the at least one camera (See [0062]).
Martin does not explicitly teach installing at least one warning module, said at least one warning module be operably coupled to said control module, said at least one warning module configured to provide both audio and visual alerts, a remotely located database, or capturing video data, wherein the at least one camera provides continuous capture of video data and transfers said video data to said control module.
Vazirani teaches installing at least one warning module, said at least one warning module be operably coupled to said control module, said at least one warning module configured to provide both audio and visual alerts (See abstract, [0032], [0044], and [0098]-[0099]),
a remotely located database (See [0071]-[0072]), and
capturing video data, wherein the at least one camera provides continuous capture of video data and transfers said video data to said control module (See [0031]-[0032] and [0099]).
Martin does not teach including a step of activating the warning module, wherein the warning modules are activated to produce a visual warning and an audio warning.
Vazirani teaches including a step of activating the warning module, wherein the warning modules are activated to produce a visual warning and an audio warning (See [0032], [0044], and [0046]).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have been motivated to modify Martin’s security system to include Vazirani’s teachings in order to “improve the effectiveness of security systems in discerning false alarms from true ones, and in quickly handling the true ones” (Vazirani, [0001]). Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Regarding claim 2, Martin does not teach further including a step of programming recipients to be notified subsequent alarm activation, wherein the user programs contact information for individuals to be contacted by the security system ensuing alarm activation.
Vazirani teaches further including a step of programming recipients to be notified subsequent alarm activation, wherein the user programs contact information for individuals to be contacted by the security system ensuing alarm activation (See [0110]).
Regarding claim 4, Martin does not teach further including a step of cross- referencing the video data to the facial imagery on said database.
Vazirani teaches further including a step of cross- referencing the video data to the facial imagery on said database (See [0099]).
Regarding claim 5, Martin does not teach identifying a restricted individual, wherein a software application on the database identifies a match of facial imagery between the video data and a restricted individual stored on the database.
Vazirani teaches identifying a restricted individual, wherein a software application on the database identifies a match of facial imagery between the video data and a restricted individual stored on the database (See [099]).
Regarding claim 6, Martin does not teach including a step of activating the warning module, wherein said control module activates the warning module ensuing notification from said database regarding a facial imagery match.
Vazirani teaches including a step of activating the warning module, wherein said control module activates the warning module ensuing notification from said database regarding a facial imagery match (See [0099]).
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 THOMAS S MCCORMACK whose telephone number is (571)272-0841. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Brian Zimmerman can be reached on (571) 272-3059. 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.
/THOMAS S MCCORMACK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686