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 .
Status of Claims
This is a final rejection in response to claim amendments/remarks filed on 09/26/2025. Claims 1, 6, and 10 have been amended, and claims 4-5 have been canceled. Claims 1-3 and 6-10 remain pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. PCT/JP2020/038965, filed on October 15, 2020.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3, and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Is the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture, or Composition of Matter?
Claims 1-10 recite: A building monitoring system, comprising: a building monitoring device...
Claims 1-10 are directed to a system comprising of devices, therefore it falls under at least one of the potentially eligible subject matter categories: process, product, or machine. Therefore, the claims are to be further analyzed under step 2 of the 2 step eligibility analysis.
Step 2a Prong 1: Is the claim directed to a Judicial Exception (A Law of Nature, a Natural Phenomenon (Product of Nature), or An Abstract Idea?)
The claims under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification are analyzed herein. Representative claim 1 is marked up, isolating the abstract idea from additional elements, wherein the abstract idea is set in bold and the additional elements have been italicized as follows:
-A building monitoring system comprising: a building monitoring device that is provided inside a building and monitors an inside of the building; and
- a management server that is connected to the building monitoring device via a communication line and manages the building monitoring device; wherein,
- the building monitoring device comprises a building monitoring device side control means that controls the building monitoring device,
- the building monitoring device side control means comprises an abnormality notifier that detects an abnormality having occurred inside the building and notifies the management server of the detected abnormality via the communication line upon detecting the abnormality having occurred inside the building,
- the management server comprises a management server side control means that controls the management server; and
- the management server side control means comprises an abnormality annunciator that announces the abnormality to an administrator when the management server side control means is notified by the abnormality notifier;
- wherein the building monitoring device further comprises an image capturing means that captures images of the inside of the building; and
- the building monitoring device side control means comprises:
- a storage that stores a sample of a normal behavior pattern for use of the building;
- a behavior pattern obtainer that obtains a captured behavior pattern of a user of the building on the basis of the images captured by the image capturing means; and
- a behavior pattern determiner that compares the sample of the normal behavior pattern stored in the storage with the captured behavior pattern obtained by the behavior pattern obtainer, determines whether there is a difference, and detects the abnormality having occurred inside the building when the behavior pattern determiner has determined that there is the difference.
When evaluating the bolded limitations of the claims under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, it is clear that representative claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea category of certain methods of organizing human activity. This abstract idea grouping found in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) includes claims to “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people.” The invention is directed to this subcategory which includes social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions, because when evaluating the bolded limitations, all of the steps are directed to instructions for personnel within a security system to follow. In the context of the disclosure, the monitoring system is put in place to replace a human real estate agent. Every step in the claims are instructions to perform actions that a trained real estate agent and/or security officer would perform as part of their typical duties. For example, a security guard or real estate agent monitoring a location would know to “communicate” with management upon suspecting that guests are acting abnormally. As claimed, management announcing the abnormality to an administrator, covers the scope of a person receiving the abnormality to further contact an administrator(such as a boss, or an emergency dispatcher). Further evidence that the invention is directed to a management system that is usually done by individuals is found in the specification [0004-0005]:
“On the other hand, when actually allowing the applicant to preview the inside of the building in order to meet the request of the applicant, the presence of the agent is necessary in order to monitor and suppress damage or the like inside the building. [0005] An object of the present disclosure is to provide a building monitoring system that allows an unmanned monitoring of the building without requiring the presence of the agent and can suppress the damage or the like inside the building.”
Furthermore, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) states, “Finally, the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. It is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings.” Thus, the claims in bold reflect the actual activity itself, and leaves the additional elements to be considered in Prong 2.
Even when considering the amended limitations, such as the storage of a sample of normal behavior, a behavior pattern obtainer that obtains a captured behavior pattern, and a behavior pattern determiner that compares the normal behavior to the captured behavior to determine whether there is a difference, this is still a further limitation which falls under “managing personal behavior, interactions, or relationships between people.” The amended limitations above, in bold, are recited at such a high level of generality that they encompass mere instructions to people to manage their personal behavior.
To further elaborate this point, it is shown that the function of “compares the sample of the normal behavior pattern stored in the storage with the captured behavior pattern obtained by the behavior pattern obtainer, determines whether there is a difference, and detects the abnormality having occurred inside the building when the behavior pattern determiner has determined that there is the difference” can be performed in the human mind, which makes it a “mental processes” as outlined in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) because a human can observe another human and make a judgment whether their activities are abnormal based on what they have seen before.
MPEP 2106.04(a), states “It should be noted that these groupings are not mutually exclusive, i.e., some claims recite limitations that fall within more than one grouping or sub-grouping. For example, a claim reciting performing mathematical calculations using a formula that could be practically performed in the human mind may be considered to fall within the mathematical concepts grouping and the mental process grouping. Accordingly, examiners should identify at least one abstract idea grouping, but preferably identify all groupings to the extent possible, if a claim limitation(s) is determined to fall within multiple groupings and proceed with the analysis in Step 2A Prong Two.”
Therefore, when viewing the claim together, it is evident that the claims recite at least “managing personal behavior, interactions, or relationships between people,” especially when considering that the amended limitations can be performed by a human, and are thus mere instructions to an individual to manage their personal behavior. Thus, the abstract idea is now, “monitoring a building, observing person to see if they are behaving abnormally, notifying management when an abnormality is taking place, management announcing to an administrator that an abnormality has taken place.”
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
The claims include the following additional elements:
(a)- building monitoring device
(b)- management server that is connected to the building monitoring device via
(c)-a communication line
(d)- building monitoring device side control means
(e)- management server side control means
(f) - image capturing means
The additional element remote computing device are no more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer on its ordinary capacity. In this case the abstract idea of “monitoring a building, observing person to see if they are behaving abnormally, notifying management when an abnormality is taking place, management announcing to an administrator that an abnormality has taken place” is merely instructed to be performed on generic computing devices such as a building monitoring device, management server, a communication line, building monitoring device side control means, management server side control means, and image capturing means. Please review MPEP 2106.05(f) for more information regarding Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception. Further support that these additional elements fall within this category can be found in the specification,
“For example, in the above embodiment, various functions of the building monitoring system 1 are distributed and implemented in the preview robot 3, the management server 4, the customer attraction server 6, and the site controller 7, but any function may be distributed and implemented in any of the preview robot 3, the management server 4, the customer attraction server 6, and the site controller 7, and the building monitoring system 1 may be appropriately designed as long as the various functions of the building monitoring system 1 can be implemented.”
Since the disclosure states that the functions of the system can be implemented on any of the robot, servers, or controllers as long as they are capable of performing the functions, additional elements listed above are simply generic computing technology performing any of the functions above.
Furthermore, the additional element “communication line,” is an example of generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use as outlined by MPEP 2106.05(h). In this case, the abstract idea is being generally linked to the technological environment of the internet, or any other wireless communication. The way in which these fields are being applied to the abstract idea are recited so broadly that they do not meaningfully limit the abstract idea. Therefore, none of the additional elements have been found to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
The same additional elements set forth in the Prong 2 rejection are also analyzed for whether they recite an inventive concept, the additional elements being repeated as follows:
(a)- building monitoring device
(b)- management server that is connected to the building monitoring device via
(c)-a communication line
(d)- building monitoring device side control means
(e)- management server side control means
(f) - image capturing means
The additional elements have also not been found to include significantly more in order to consider it an inventive concept for the same reasons set forth in Prong 2, specifically that elements are generic computing devices in which the abstract idea is being implemented on, and element (c) is a technological environment that the abstract idea is generally being linked to. Furthermore, no improvements to the building monitoring device, management server, or control means have been purported. Please review MPEP 2106.05(a) for more information regarding improvements to computing devices(Section I), or technological fields(Section II). These elements do not provide significantly more, because they do not meaningfully limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technology or technical field. Furthermore, improvements to the technology or technical field have not been purported. Therefore, the claims do not include additional elements that provide significantly more in order to be considered as an inventive concept.
The dependent claims 2-3, and 6-10 are also given the full two-part analysis, individually and in combination with the claims they depend on, in the following analysis:
Claim 2 adds the following additional step:
-wherein the building monitoring device is connected to a locking device of the building via a communication line, and the building monitoring device side control means comprises a locking device determiner that determines whether the locking device has been normally unlocked, and detects the abnormality having occurred inside the building when the locking device determiner has determined that the locking device has not been normally unlocked.
This dependent claims adds an additional step which is directed to connecting the building monitoring device to a locking device which can sense whether the device is “normally unlocked” or “not normally unlocked.” The bolded limitations are directed to the abstract idea of “mental processes” as outlined in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) because a human can observe if a lock is unlocked or locked when it should be and determine whether this is an abnormality based on the schedule. In combination with the claims they depend on, the abstract idea is now, “monitoring a building, checking a lock to see whether it should be locked or unlocked, notifying management when an abnormality is taking place, management announcing to an administrator that an abnormality has taken place.” In addition, the additional elements (a), (d) are repeated and are still not found to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or include significantly more because they are still performing generic functions well within their ordinary capabilities. The additional element, “locking device” is an example of generally applying the abstract idea to the technological environment of automated locking devices which can sense if it unlocked or locked as outlined in MPEP 2106.05(h). No improvements to locking devices have been purported because locking devices which can communicate whether they are locked or unlocked are already commonplace in the field of integrate security systems. Therefore, the abstract idea is still not integrated into a practical application and still fails to include significantly more.
Claim 3 adds the following additional step:
-wherein the building monitoring device comprises a customer service means that serves a user of the building, and the building monitoring device side control means comprises a customer service executor that executes customer service by the customer service means when the locking device determiner determines that the locking device is normally unlocked.
The bolded limitations of this dependent claim recite providing customer service to a user who unlocked the building. Providing customer service is an abstract idea according to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) because it is an example of “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people.” The combined abstract idea is now “monitoring a building, checking a lock to see whether it should be locked or unlocked, providing customer service if it is normally unlocked, notifying management when an abnormality is taking place, management announcing to an administrator that an abnormality has taken place.” In addition, the additional elements (a), (d) are repeated and are still not found to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or include significantly more because they are still performing generic functions well within their ordinary capabilities. The additional element, “locking device” is repeated and is still an example of generally applying the abstract idea to the technological environment of automated locking devices which can sense if it unlocked or locked as outlined in MPEP 2106.05(h). Therefore, the abstract idea is still not integrated into a practical application and still fails to include significantly more.
Claims 6-8 adds the following step:
Claim 6- wherein the management server side control means comprises: a management side reservation manager that manages management side reservation information including usage start time and usage end time set by reservation; a command generator that generates a command to the building monitoring device on the basis of the management side reservation information; and a command transmitter that transmits the command to the building monitoring device via the communication line, and the building monitoring device side control means comprises: a command receiver that receives the command from the command transmitter; and a command executor that executes a predetermined operation on the basis of the command received by the command receiver.
Claim 7 merely further limits the command to be an announcement of the usage time.
Claim 8 – wherein the management side reservation manager manages the management side reservation information including a reservation status after the usage end time, the command generator generates an extension command to announce whether a usage time can be extended according to the reservation status on the basis of the management side reservation information, and the command executor announces to a user whether the usage time can be extended on the basis of the extension command.
The bolded steps above recite functions that are typically performed by individuals managing reservations. All that is being claimed are steps that involve checking in a user and comparing the reservation time to the actual time, as would typically be done in a hotel setting when guests are checked into the hotel. The additional step in claim 8 simply checks whether a reservation can be extended by checking if there is another reservation after the current one, which is equivalent to a hotel manager allowing you to check out late if there is no reservation for the room right after yours. These concepts are abstract ideas according to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) because it is an example of “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people.” The combined abstract idea is now, “monitoring a building, checking if the check in information matches the reservation information, notifying a user if they can extend their reservation, notifying management when an abnormality is taking place, management announcing to an administrator that an abnormality has taken place.” The new additional elements, “receiver” and “transmitter” are generic computer devices of which the abstract idea is being performed on performing their typical functions of receiving and transmitting information. In addition, the additional elements (a),(b), (c), (d), and (e) are repeated and are still not found to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or include significantly more because they are still performing generic functions well within their ordinary capabilities or are technological environments of which the abstract idea is being applied to.
Claim 9 adds the additional step:
-wherein the building monitoring device comprises an input receiving means that receives input of an application for extension by a user, the building monitoring device side control means comprises an application transmitter that transmits the application for extension to the management server via the communication line when the input of the application for extension is received by the input receiving means, the management server side control means comprises an application receiver that receives the application for extension transmitted from the application transmitter, and the management side reservation manager changes the usage end time and updates the management side reservation information on the basis of the application for extension received by the application receiver.
The bolded steps above add the additional step of receiving an application for extensions from a user, prior to performing the steps of claim 8 which check whether the usage end time can be extended. This additional step is more of the same abstract idea of “monitoring a building, checking if the check in information matches the reservation information, notifying a user if they can extend their reservation, notifying management when an abnormality is taking place, management announcing to an administrator that an abnormality has taken place” because an application for extension from a user falls within the scope of “checking if the check in information matches the reservation information, notifying a user if they can extend their reservation.” The application for extension is simply a data receiving step that already falls within the scope of the abstract idea. The new additional elements, “application receiver” and “application transmitter” are generic computer devices of which the abstract idea is being performed on performing their typical functions of receiving and transmitting information. The new additional element, “an input receiving means” has been interpreted within 112(f) to cover any generic tactile sensing device to take data inputs, which is an example of generic computing devices in which the abstract idea is being implemented on as outlined in MPEP 2106.05(f). In addition, the additional elements (a),(b), (c), (d), and (e) are repeated and are still not found to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or include significantly more because they are still performing generic functions well within their ordinary capabilities or are technological environments of which the abstract idea is being applied to.
Claim 10 adds the additional step:
- wherein the building monitoring device comprises a presence detection means that detects presence of a user inside the building, the building monitoring device side control means comprises a presence notifier that notifies the management server of the presence of the user via the communication line when the presence detection means detects the presence of the user, the management server side control means comprises a presence manager that manages presence information of the user notified by the presence notifier, the command generator generates a warning command to announce a warning to the user when the user is present even after the usage end time on the basis of the management side reservation information and the presence information, and the command executor announces to the user that the usage end time has passed on the basis of the warning command.
The bolded limitations add the additional step of checking for the presence of a person, and warning the user if they are still there after their reservation has already ended. These concepts are abstract ideas according to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) because it is an example of “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” because it is an instruction given to a user to manage the behavior of an individual. The combined abstract idea is now, “monitoring a building, checking if the check in information matches the reservation information, notifying a user if they can extend their reservation, checking the presence of user, warning the user if they are past their reservation time, notifying management when an abnormality is taking place, management announcing to an administrator that an abnormality has taken place.” The new additional element, “a presence detection means” has been interpreted within 112(f) to cover any motion sensing device or even a camera which is an example of generic computing devices in which the abstract idea is being implemented on as outlined in MPEP 2106.05(f). In addition, the additional elements (a),(b), (c), (d), and (e) are repeated and are still not found to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or include significantly more because they are still performing generic functions well within their ordinary capabilities or are technological environments of which the abstract idea is being applied to.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1-3, 6, & 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brophy et al. (US 11145016 B1) hereinafter Brophy, in view of Cobb et al.(US 8180105 B2) hereinafter Cobb.
Regarding Claim 1:
Brophy teaches A building monitoring system comprising: (Brophy[Col. 1 Lines 55-61] Techniques are described for allowing tenants to tour properties without the presence of an owner, real estate agent, or property manager. A system uses tenant reservation data to automatically show rental properties to prospective tenants, including providing access codes and monitoring the rental properties in accordance with tenant reservations and check-ins/check-outs.)
-a building monitoring device that is provided inside a building and monitors an inside of the building; (Brophy[Col. 13 Line 58- Col. 14 Line 2] In some examples, the server 130 may operate the interactive device to guide a visitor through key areas of the property 101. The interactive device may grant the visitor access to specific areas of the property 101. In some examples, the visitor may not access certain areas of the property 101 without the interactive device. For example, the visitor may be denied access to a second floor or a basement or a door leading to a different area of the property 101 unless they are holding the interactive device. The interactive device may communicate with doors and sensors through short-ranged wireless communication (RFID, NFC, etc.).[Col. 14 Lines 12-21] In some examples, the interactive device may collect and transmit data to the server 130. For example, the server 130 may be able to gather visitor interaction data or visitor location data based on the data received from the interactive device. The server 130 may use the visitor interaction data or visitor location data to determine how long a visitor has been at the property 101, predict the visitor’s interest in the property 101, detect when a user is doing something unsavory (e.g., eating cookies from the cookie jar, stealing napkin holders, etc.).) Brophy’s interactive device teaches the building monitoring device because it is a device that is monitoring a user’s actions within the building.
-a management server that is connected to the building monitoring device via a communication line and manages the building monitoring device; (Brophy[Col. 14 Lines 3-16] The server 130 may operate the interactive device to guide a user through a tour by providing voice-guidance, presenting augmented reality graphics, operating certain systems, etc. For example, the server 130 may operate the interactive device to turn on the lights of specific areas while they are described to the visitor by a voice-over. In some examples, the owner or property manager may be providing a live tour by controlling systems through the server 130 while talking to the visitor through the interactive device. In some examples, the interactive device may collect and transmit data to the server 130. For example, the server 130 may be able to gather visitor interaction data or visitor location data based on the data received from the interactive device.)
-wherein: the building monitoring device comprises a building monitoring device side control means that controls the building monitoring device, (Brophy[Col. 23 Lines 12-21] In some implementations, the interactive device receives monitoring system data captured by the monitor control unit 110 through the network 105. The interactive device may receive the data from the monitor control unit 110 through the network 105 or the rental property management server 130 may relay data received from the monitor control unit 110 to the interactive device through the network 105. In this regard, the rental property management server 130 may facilitate communication between the interactive device and the monitoring system.) Brophy’s monitor control unit is mapped to the building monitoring device side control means because the interactive device receives monitoring system data from the monitor control unit, therefore the entire limitation above is taught.
-the building monitoring device side control means comprises an abnormality notifier that detects an abnormality having occurred inside the building and notifies the management server of the detected abnormality via the communication line upon detecting the abnormality having occurred inside the building, (Brophy [Col. 21 Lines 48-61] The rental property management server 130 is an electronic device configured to provide monitoring services by exchanging electronic communications with the monitor control unit 110 and the user device 140 over a network. For example, the rental property management server 130 may be configured to monitor events (e.g., alarm events) generated by the monitor control unit 110. In this example, the rental property management server 130 may exchange electronic communications with the network module included in the monitor control unit 110 to receive information regarding events (e.g., alarm events) detected by the monitor control unit 110. The rental property management server 130 also may receive authorization information (e.g., keypad codes, electronic lock codes, etc.) from the user device 140. [Col. 30 Lines 41-53] The flagged events 510 may highlight events of the events during the prospective tenant’s visit 508. For example, events determined to be abnormal may be displayed in a visually different way. Events may be determined to be abnormal if they are events the owner or property manager does not wish to happen. For example, an item being removed from the refrigerator may be an abnormal event that is flagged. Events may be automatically determined to be abnormal by the system 100. For example, if an event such as a television on event has never occurred within the property 101 or any of the properties managed by an owner or property manager, the system 100 may determine the television on event to be abnormal and flag the event. [Col. 31 Lines 10-16] In some examples, the interface 500 may provide an alert to a remote user in real time.) Brophy’s monitor control unit is in communication with the server and is being used to the detected alarm events, which include abnormalities, therefore the entire limitation is taught.
-the management server comprises a management server side control means that controls the management server, and the management server side control means comprises an abnormality annunciator that announces the abnormality to an administrator when the management server side control means is notified by the abnormality notifier. (Brophy [Col. 3 Lines 12-17] In these implementations, the server 130 further receives data related to settings for monitoring systems, devices, and energy management provided by owners and/or property managers of the rental properties managed by the server 130. [Col. 29 Lines 37-47]FIG. 5 illustrates a diagram of an example interface 500 for unattended property showing. The interface 500 includes a title 402, photo 404, prospective tenant name 502, reservation information 504, prospective tenant temporal data 506, events during the prospective tenant’s visit 508, and flagged events 510. The interface 500 may be used by an owner or property manager of the property being shown. For example, the interface may be used by an owner or property manager of the property 101. The details shown by the interface 500 may relate to a prospective tenant, such as the individual near the front door 102 or the authorized user 104.[Col. 31 Lines 10-16] In some examples, the interface 500 may provide an alert to a remote user in real time. Alerts may be provided for flagged or abnormal events 510. Alert may indicate information such as occupancy information, electronic lock information, security footage, and response options. In some examples, the alert can be transmitted to the user device of an owner or property manager of the property.) In the above citation, Brophy teaches an interface being displayed to the administrator which shows flagged events. Since this interface is capable of providing an alert of abnormal events in real time, then the entire limitation is taught.
-wherein the building monitoring device comprises an image capturing means that captures an image of the inside of the building, and the building monitoring device side control means (Brophy[Col. 18 Lines 4 – 16]In some examples, the server 130 may use a combination of the sensor data and the access code data to determine which particular users are in an area of property 101. For example, there may be five prospective tenants simultaneously touring the property 101. The server 130 may determine from the sensor data (e.g., video, still images, etc.) that a person is in the master bedroom of the property 101, where they have been asked not to go. For example, video data from the cameras 126 may be used with facial recognition to determine the identity of a visitor or prospective tenant. In some examples motion sensor data from the sensors 122 may be used to track visitors' and/or prospective tenants' movements in or around the property 101.) Brophy teaches a system that uses cameras to monitor users within a building and their movement and actions.
While Brophy teaches examples of abnormal events in [Col. 30 Lines 41-53], these are not specifically “behavior patterns”, therefore, Brophy does not teach:
the building monitoring device side control means comprises:
- a storage that stores a sample of a normal behavior pattern for use of the building;
- a behavior pattern obtainer that obtains a captured behavior pattern of a user of the building on the basis of the images captured by the image capturing means; and
- a behavior pattern determiner that compares the sample of the normal behavior pattern stored in the storage with the captured behavior pattern obtained by the behavior pattern obtainer, determines whether there is a difference, and detects the abnormality having occurred inside the building when the behavior pattern determiner has determined that there is the difference.
Alternatively, Cobb discloses a video surveillance system which analyzes a scene captured by a video camera and models the behavior of foreground objects through cluster and sequence layers. The cluster layers are further evaluated to determine an occurrence of behavioral anomalies and publishing an alert. Cobb teaches:
- a storage that stores a sample of a normal behavior pattern for use of the building;(Cobb[Col. 6 Lines 24-29] Additionally, multiple applications may interact with one another, e.g., a user-application program may interact with another application such as a database to provide an intended service or function. Also, such programs typically include variables and data structures that may reside in memory or on storage devices. [Col. 15 Lines 60-64] That is, as new behaviors emerge in the scene, new clusters will emerge in the ART network 625. Further, over time, as the new clusters mature, the cluster layer 600 may treat input data mapping to such clusters as being representative of an observation of normal behavior. [Col. 1 Line 30-33] Some such systems may also classify a blob as being a particular agent (e.g., a person or a vehicle) as well as determine when an object has engaged in certain predefined behaviors.)
- a behavior pattern obtainer that obtains a captured behavior pattern of a user of the building on the basis of the images captured by the image capturing means; and (Cobb[Col. 9 Lines 55-59] In one embodiment, the primitive event detector 212 may be configured to receive the output of the computer vision engine 135 (i.e., the video images, context event stream) and generate a sequence of primitive events--labeling the observed actions or behaviors in the video with semantic meaning. [Col. 10 Lines 18-26] As noted, the sequencing/clustering layers 245 in the cortex model component 240 alternate between clustering and sequencing. For example, in one embodiment, a first layer contains clusters of features (e.g., kinematic data vectors output by the computer vision engine clustered using an adaptive resonance theory (ART) network). A second layer contains sequences of clusters of features (e.g., sequences of ART network labels to which successive kinematic data vectors are mapped to), and a third layer contains clusters of sequences of clusters of features, etc) Primitive events, and kinematic data vectors output by the computer vision engine, all fall within the scope of “captured behavior pattern of a user.”
- a behavior pattern determiner that compares the sample of the normal behavior pattern stored in the storage with the captured behavior pattern obtained by the behavior pattern obtainer, determines whether there is a difference, and (Cobb [Col. 10 Lines 40-60] In one embodiment, once sequencing/clustering layers 245 in the cortex model have observed the scene for a specified period of time, the behavioral anomaly detector 225 may use the current clusters (or sequences) to evaluate input from the computer vision engine 135, generally in real-time. That is, as the computer vision engine 135 builds a trajectory of kinematic data, micro feature data or primitive event data while observing a foreground object in the scene, the behavioral anomaly detector 225 may evaluate the emergent trajectories to identify anomalous events, based on the prior observations of the scene as represented by the then existing state of the sequencing/clustering layers 245. For example, if a current input (e.g., a kinematic data vector) does not map to an ART network cluster with a probability of mapped to that is above a specified threshold, relative to the input data being mapped to other clusters in that ART network, a cluster anomaly may be issued. Similarly, for sequence layers, if the current input (e.g., a cluster label assigned to a cluster in an ART network) is not an element of a sequence having a probability of occurring above a specified threshold (relative to prior observation), a sequence anomaly may be issued [Col. 15 Line 61 – Col. 16 Line 4] Further, over time, as the new clusters mature, the cluster layer 600 may treat input data mapping to such clusters as being representative of an observation of normal behavior. Thus, when input data (e.g., a kinematic data vectors) maps to a cluster in ART network 625 that has not matured--it may represent a new emergent behavior or the observation of an anomalous event (at that layer of the cortex model component 240). Accordingly, in one embodiment, the ART network 625 may issue an alert to users of the video surveillance system when such an event occurs.) The broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation above is that the determiner compares, the sample of the behavior pattern (which can be any form of data representative of the behavior pattern), to the obtained pattern obtainer. Since the current input (kinematic data vector) represents the obtained behavior pattern, and it is compared to the ART network cluster, which represents the normal behavior pattern, the limitation is satisfied. Determining the probability of mapping above a specific threshold, falls within the broader scope of “comparing.”
- detects the abnormality having occurred inside the building when the behavior pattern determiner has determined that there is the difference. (Cobb[Col. 10 Line 60 – Col. 11 Line 3]More simply, as clusters and sequences modeling a given environment emerge in the clustering/sequencing layers 245 (i.e., clusters and sequences modeling the behavior of foreground objects in a scene captured in a sequence of video frames), the behavioral anomaly detector 225 may be configured to generate and issue alerts when input data received from the computer vision engine differs from prior observation. In one embodiment, probabilities of observing a given sequence or input data mapping to a given cluster may be stored by the cluster statistics 230. [Col. 20 Lines 56-67] At step 1035, once such an input data is mapped to a cluster in a trained ART network, the cortex model component may evaluate which cluster the input data is mapped to, and in some cases identify an anomaly, e.g., if the input to a trained ART network does not match any cluster or when the input maps to a "rare" or "immature" cluster. For example, using the vigilance parameter, it is possible that an input will not match any existing ART cluster. In such a case, the input is flagged as an anomaly and a new node may be created in the ART network so that the corresponding input data can be passed to the next sequence layer in the cortex model.) The scope of “determined that there is a difference,” encapsulates, “input...does not match any cluster.”
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to modify Brophy by adding Cobb’s video surveillance system, particularly the method in which anomalous behaviors are detected. The combined invention would provide the expected outcome of detecting anomalous events that have not yet been defined by the user. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make the combination because it would provide the benefit of recognizing unusual or unexpected behaviors, work in a wide variety of real life situations and adapt to a changing environment.(Cobb[Col. 1 Line 52- Col. 2 Line 2])
Regarding Claim 2:
The combination of Brophy and Cobb teach The building monitoring system according to claim 1:
Furthermore, Brophy teaches:
-wherein the building monitoring device is connected to a locking device of the building via a communication line, and (Brophy[Col. 4 Line 66- Col. 5 Line 3] The system 100 also includes electronic locks located at each of the properties. As shown, the property 101 includes an electronic lock 128 located at an exterior door of the property 101 and a monitor control unit 110 located within the property 101.[Col. 5 Lines 15-24] The electronic lock 128 engages in two-way communications with the monitor control unit 110 over the short-range wireless communication protocol. In this example, the monitor control unit 110 includes communication components that allow the monitor control unit 110 to perform two-way communication with the lock 128 over the short-range wireless communication protocol and to perform two-way communication with the server 130 over a long-range communication protocol (e.g., a long-range wired or wireless communication protocol).)
-the building monitoring device side control means comprises a locking device determiner that determines whether the locking device has been normally unlocked, and (Brophy[Col. 5 Lines 3-11]The electronic lock 128 may include a user input device that receives user input of a passcode and a mechanical lock that unlocks and locks a physical door of an entrance to the property 101. The electronic lock 128 also may include a communication module that performs two-way communication over a wired or short-range wireless communication protocol and a processor that controls the lock to allow access to the property based on entry of a proper passcode through the user input device. [Col. 5 Lines 25-30] The monitoring system 110 may serve as an intermediary between the server 130 and the lock 128 to enable the server 130 to remotely program and manage the lock 128 and also to receive reports when events (e.g., entry of a correct passcode, entry of an incorrect passcode, entry of a check-in or checkout code, etc.) occur at the lock 128.) As taught by Brophy, the monitoring system receives reports when events occur with the locking device, this intermediary between the server and the lock is mapped to the locking device determiner. This device controls the unlocking and locking of a door according to events such as entry of a correct passcode, and entry of an incorrect passcode, respectively. The system unlocking when entry of a correct passcode has been detected is equivalent to determining whether the device has been “normally unlocked” therefore the entire limitation is taught by Brophy.
-detects the abnormality having occurred inside the building when the locking device determiner has determined that the locking device has not been normally unlocked. (Brophy [Col. 3 Lines 29-39] In general, the system 100 can be configured to respond to an electronic lock action by an individual 102 based on monitoring an detectable region 128a of the property 101 and determining an appropriate action to be performed in response based on one or more actions specified by a lock action repository 132. The lock action repository 132 may include actions available in response to inputs to the electronic lock 128. For example, in response to the electronic lock 128 detecting an input of an incorrect access code, the lock action repository 132 may transmit a control signal to the monitor control unit 110 to active an alarm.)
Regarding Claim 3:
The combination of Brophy and Cobb teach The building monitoring system according to claim 2:
Furthermore, Brophy teaches:
- wherein the building monitoring device comprises a customer service means that serves a user of the building, and the building monitoring device side control means comprises a customer service executor that executes customer service by the customer service means when the locking device determiner determines that the locking device is normally unlocked. (Brophy [Col. 13 Lines 32-51] A user may then input their unique access code to the electronic lock 128 to gain access to the property 101. The electronic lock 128 may transmit data indicating that it has received an input. The server 130 may receive the access code data to record when a particular user has arrived at the property 101. In some examples, the server 130 may perform an action based on the access code data. For example, the server 130 may determine that a user, John, has entered his access code, and has entered the property 101. The server 130 may operate a speaker system located on the property 101 to greet John (e.g., saying “Welcome to your new home, John! Feel free to look around!”). In some examples, multiple prospective tenants may be inside the property 101, and the server 130 may provide a personalized greeting for each visitor. In some examples, the server 130 may notify the owner or property manager of the property 101 that a particular visitor has arrived. The owner or property manager may then greet the visitor personally (e.g., through a speaker system, through a phone call, through an interactive device within the property 101).) Brophy’s example of “John” entering the access code data and entering the property is an example of the determiner determining that the locking device is normally unlocked. John then being greeted is an example of customer service, and the speaker system, phone call or interactive device is mapped to the customer service means.
Regarding Claim 6:
The combination of Brophy and Cobb teach The building monitoring system according to claim 1:
Furthermore, Brophy teaches:
-wherein the management server side control means comprises: a management side reservation manager that manages management side reservation information including usage start time and usage end time set by reservation; (Brophy[Col. 11 Lines 22-28] In some examples, the server 130 stores reservation information (e.g., periods in which properties are rented, arrival date-time, departure date-time, etc.) for each property being managed by the server 130. At a particular number of hours prior to the prospective tenant arrival, the server 130 may send a signal via a network (e.g., the Internet) to the monitor control unit 110 in the rental property 101.)
-a command generator that generates a command to the building monitoring device on the basis of the management side reservation information; and (Brophy [Col. 10 Lines 38-43] In some implementations, the server 130 also sets a “departure” profile. In these implementations, the server 130 may use the prospective tenant reservation data (e.g., check out date/time) and may send a signal to the monitoring system that includes settings for the departure of the prospective tenant.) The settings for the departure of the prospective tenant is an example of a command based on the reservation information.
-a command transmitter that transmits the command to the building monitoring device via the communication line; and (Brophy[Col. 11 Lines 22-34] In some examples, the server 130 stores reservation information (e.g., periods in which properties are rented, arrival date-time, departure date-time, etc.) for each property being managed by the server 130. At a particular number of hours prior to the prospective tenant arrival, the server 130 may send a signal via a network (e.g., the Internet) to the monitor control unit 110 in the rental property 101. The signal may include a prospective tenant arrival temperature setting, a lighting system profile, a personalized greeting, etc., and the monitor control unit 110 may then send the prospective tenant arrival settings to the appropriate devices (e.g., a thermostat, lights, a speaker system, etc.) located in the rental property 101.)
-the building monitoring device side control means comprises: a command receiver that receives the command from the command transmitter; and a command executor that executes a predetermined operation on the basis of the command received by the command receiver. (Brophy [Col. 10 Line 50 – Col. 11 Line 2] The server 130 may use reservation data and/or electronic lock events to control departure timing similar to how the server 130 uses reservation data and/or electronic lock events to control arrival timing. For instance, the server 130 may monitor for a departure code that the prospective tenant is asked to enter at the lock when checking out. In some examples, the departure code may operate the electronic lock 128. In some examples, the departure code does not operate the electronic lock 128, but is used to report the check-out to the server 130, which in turn is able to perform energy management operations defined for when the rental property is not occupied by a prospective tenant. To the extent the server 130 does not detect the departure code by the latest check-out time allowed with the reservation, the server 130 may, at that time, initiate operations defined for when the rental property is not occupied by a prospective tenant or may provide reminder to the prospective tenant that their reserved time has elapsed, e.g., flash the lights in the property, provide an announcement of speakers in the property that the reserved time has elapsed, etc.)
Regarding Claim 7:
The combination of Brophy and Cobb teach The building monitoring system according to claim 6:
Furthermore, Brophy teaches:
-wherein the command generator generates an announcement command to announce the usage end time on the basis of the management side reservation information, and the command executor announces the usage end time to a user on the basis of the announcement command.(Brophy[Col. 10 Line 61 – Col. 11 Line 2] To the extent the server 130 does not detect the departure code by the latest check-out time allowed with the reservation, the server 130 may, at that time, initiate operations defined for when the rental property is not occupied by a prospective tenant or may provide reminder to the prospective tenant that their reserved time has elapsed, e.g., flash the lights in the property, provide an announcement of speakers in the property that the reserved time has elapsed, etc.[Col. 18 Line 48-59] The server 130 may send the visitor a notification informing them that their reservation period is over. In some examples, the server 130 may turn off the lights, or initiate the unoccupied profile for the devices and systems on the property 101 once the last visitor’s reservation period is over. For example, the server 130 may begin to dim the lights on the property 101 five minutes after warning a visitor that they are the last visitor of the day and that their reservation period is over. In some examples, the server 130 may notify the owner or property manager if a visitor is detected within the property 101 after being warned that their time is up.)
Regarding Claim 10:
The combination of Brophy and Cobb teach The building monitoring system according to claim 6:
Furthermore, Brophy teaches:
-wherein the building monitoring device comprises a presence detection means that detects presence of a user inside the building, (Brophy[Col. 7 Line 34-48] The property 101 may include various monitoring devices. For example, the property 101 may include cameras, sensors, and other devices that provide monitoring data associated with devices and areas of the property 101. Cameras located on the property 101 may provide video, still images, or other monitoring data, and may provide data via a live feed, transmit data to be stored in a remote location, store data locally for review at a later time, etc. Sensors located on the property 101 may include motion sensors, heat sensors, pressure sensors, resistive sensors, etc. Sensors may communicate with the monitor control unit 110 and transmit monitoring data for processing to the monitor control unit 110. In some examples, sensors located on the property 101 may store collected data locally or transmit monitoring data to be stored in a remote location.)
-the building monitoring device side control means comprises a presence notifier that notifies the management server of the presence of the user via the communication line when the presence detection means detects the presence of the user, (Brophy[Col. 18 Lines 8-23] The server 130 may determine from the sensor data (e.g., video, still images, etc.) that a person is in the master bedroom of the property 101, where they have been asked not to go. For example, video data from the cameras 126 may be used with facial recognition to determine the identity of a visitor or prospective tenant. In some examples motion sensor data from the sensors 122 may be used to track visitors’ and/or prospective tenants’ movements in or around the property 101. The server 130 may compare the sensor data with the access code data and the user data associated with the access code to determine that the user is Ronald. The server 130 may send Ronald a notification informing him that the owner or property manager has been notified, and that he should exit the master bedroom..)
-the management server side control means comprises a presence manager that manages presence information of the user notified by the presence notifier, the command generator generates a warning command to announce a warning to the user when the user is present even after the usage end time on the basis of the management side reservation information and the presence information, and the command executor announces to the user that the usage end time has passed on the basis of the warning command. (Brophy[Col. 18 Lines 44 – 67] The server 130 may determine, using the monitoring data and the access code data, how long a user has been in the property 101. The server 130 may analyze such data to predict a user’s interest in the property, determine whether a user has been at the property for too long, etc. The server 130 may send the visitor a notification informing them that their reservation period is over. In some examples, the server 130 may turn off the lights, or initiate the unoccupied profile for the devices and systems on the property 101 once the last visitor’s reservation period is over. For example, the server 130 may begin to dim the lights on the property 101 five minutes after warning a visitor that they are the last visitor of the day and that their reservation period is over. In some examples, the server 130 may notify the owner or property manager if a visitor is detected within the property 101 after being warned that their time is up. In some examples, the server 130 may present the owner or the property manager with options for actions to take. For example, the server 130 may ask the owner or property manager if authorities need to be contacted. In some examples, the server 130 may detect predefined conditions and automatically notify the authorities. For example, if a visitor is setting fire to the house, the server 130 may automatically alert the police and fire department.)
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brophy et al. (US 11145016 B1) hereinafter Brophy, in view of Cobb et al.(US 8180105 B2) hereinafter Cobb, further in view of Moati et al.( US 20170213161 A1 ) hereinafter Moati.
Regarding Claim 8:
The combination of Brophy and Cobb teaches the building monitoring system according to claim 6:
Brophy teaches:
-wherein the management side reservation manager manages the management side reservation information including a reservation status after the usage end time, (Brophy[Col. 28 Lines 53-58] The reservation information 406 provides the user with information about their reservation. In some examples, data such as the property address 408 and the reservation time 410 are shown. The reservation information 406 may include more information, such as which entrance to use, which areas are available for viewing, etc. [Col. 29 Lines 5-12] Selecting elements of the reservation information 406 may perform an action dependent on the selection. For example, a user may be able to select the property address 408 to make a change to the reservation or select the reservation time 410 to be redirected to an interface to make a change to the time of the reservation. All, some, or no elements of the reservation information 406 may be selectable or changeable. [Col. 18 Lines 46-50] The server 130 may analyze such data to predict a user’s interest in the property, determine whether a user has been at the property for too long, etc. The server 130 may send the visitor a notification informing them that their reservation period is over.) Brophy sending the visitor a notification of their reservation period being over is an example of “a reservation status after the usage end time.”
However, neither Brophy nor Cobb teach or suggest:
-the command generator generates an extension command to announce whether a usage time can be extended according to the reservation status on the basis of the management side reservation information, and
-the command executor announces to a user whether the usage time can be extended on the basis of the extension command.
Alternatively, Moati discloses an approach for facilitating reservations of resources for a short period of time(intra-day booking). Though it is not directed to the real estate touring sector, it is still analogous art because it teaches a reservation management system for individuals who are booking a room for a few hours, which is essentially what is being done in the present disclosure. Moati teaches:
-the command generator generates an extension command to announce whether a usage time can be extended according to the reservation status on the basis of the management side reservation information, and (Moati [0043] In one embodiment, the flexible booking process allows the user/guests to book a reservation beyond the limits of traditional check in and check out times, and that allows the provider to make these flexible reservations available to the users. For example, if the over-night period for a reservation is from 2:00 PM. Through 11:00 AM, the user may request for his/her check in time to be before 2:00 PM, for his/her check out time to be after 11:00 AM, or for both. This request may be done at any time, e.g., before check in or during the stay. Accordingly, the user and the provider do not need to rely on the traditional judgment call made by e.g., a hotel manager on a case by case basis on whether or not the provider can allow the user/guest into the room earlier than the check in time and/or later than the checkout time, while the user does not need to manually get in touch (e.g., call the front desk) with the hotel to request different check in or checkout time.[0060] The customer was able to effortlessly provide his information to the PMS (e.g., a hotel booker), and was automatically notified that a room was available during his requested time frame. Further, the hotel can also be alerted that the same room can be made, or will be made available to another eventual guest after the 1:00 PM.) This section of Moati teaches that a person can make a request to extend their room reservation. Later on, Moati teaches that the user is automatically notified if a room is available during the requested time frame.
-the command executor announces to a user whether the usage time can be extended on the basis of the extension command.(Moati [0056] At step 407, intra-day booking system 111 may initiate a daily reservation of the resource via a daily booking mechanism. In one example, the intra-day booking system 111, based on a request from a user, an agent, etc., may determine and present one or more hotel rooms/resources to the user or a user agent for a selection. Upon receiving a selection from the user/agent, the intra-day booking system 111 may initiate a daily/regular reservation of the hotel room. In one scenario, the intra-day booking system 111 may present a confirmation of the reservation to the user/agent.) The confirmation presented to the agent teaches the announcement limitation above.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to further modify Brophy by adding the reservation system of Moati, specifically, the features which allows guests to book extensions to their stay at any time, and automatically determining whether there is an availability for the extension. The combination would provide the expected outcome of allowing users who are touring a premise to extend their reservation by sending a request and the system determining whether there is an availability before granting/denying the request. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this combination because it would provide the benefit of increasing occupancy rates, which would give the property owner a larger chance of reaching a transaction with the guest. (Moati[0002])
Regarding Claim 8:
The combination of Brophy, Cobb and Moati teach the building monitoring system according to claim 6:
Brophy teaches:
-the building monitoring device(Brophy[Col. 7 Lines 34-37]The property 101 may include various monitoring devices. For example, the property 101 may include cameras, sensors, and other devices that provide monitoring data associated with devices and areas of the property 101.)
-the building monitoring device side control means(Brophy [Col. 11 Lines 22-27] In some examples, the server 130 stores reservation information (e.g., periods in which properties are rented, arrival date-time, departure date-time, etc.) for each property being managed by the server 130. At a particular number of hours prior to the prospective tenant arrival, the server 130 may send a signal via a network (e.g., the Internet) to the monitor control unit 110 in the rental property 101.
-the management server side control means(Brophy[Col. 25 Lines 20-28] FIG. 2 illustrates an example of a process 200 for enabling unattended property showing. Briefly, the process 200 may include accessing reservation data on a rental property management server (210), detecting a request for an upcoming reservation from a mobile device (220), confirming, in response to detecting the request, the upcoming reservation (230), generating a unique access code (240), transmitting the access code to the mobile device (250), and transmitting the access code to a monitoring system of a property (260).)
-the management side reservation manager(Brophy [Col. 25 Lines 29-45] In more detail, the process 200 may include accessing reservation data on a rental property management server (210). For example, the system 100 may access data from the rental property management server 130 indicating reservations made by users. In some examples, the data may include the date and time of the reservation. The data may include the name of the user, the user’s contact information, etc. For example, if a prospective tenant, John, has made a reservation and his reservation data has been stored in the rental property management server 130, the data may include John’s phone number, the time and date he wishes to view a rental property, and which rental property he is interested in. Then, once the system 100 receives a request for an upcoming reservation, the available times can be compared to a time slot indicated in the request and the system 100 can determine whether to confirm or deny the request for the upcoming reservation.
However, neither Brophy nor Cobb teach or suggest:
-wherein the building monitoring device comprises an input receiving means that receives input of an application for extension by a user,
-the building monitoring device side control means comprises an application transmitter that transmits the application for extension to the management server via the communication line when the input of the application for extension is received by the input receiving means,
-the management server side control means comprises an application receiver that receives the application for extension transmitted from the application transmitter, and
-the management side reservation manager changes the usage end time and updates the management side reservation information on the basis of the application for extension received by the application receiver.
Alternatively Moati teaches:
- an input receiving means that receives input of an application for extension by a user, (Moati [0061] In UI 550 of FIG. 5C, the customer may request to extend his stay at the hotel until the next day by specifying a date and check-in/check-out times, for example, if his 1:00 PM flight is cancelled. In UI 560, the user may be presented with a list of options (e.g., date, time period, price, room type, etc.) for the requested extension, wherein the extension may be completed through a UI 570 on the same device (e.g., mobile device) or another device (e.g., a tablet) by the user via a touch based interaction (e.g., by a one click touch).) The user filling out the request on the UI is an example of receiving an input of an application for extension by a user.
-the building monitoring device side control means comprises an application transmitter that transmits the application for extension to the management server via the communication line when the input of the application for extension is received by the input receiving means, (Moati[0105] In one embodiment, the chip set or chip 900 includes a communication mechanism such as a bus 901 for passing information among the components of the chip set 900. [0065] The platform herein provided, includes at least a user interface, a protocol, and an algorithm for enabling the last-minute or intra-day booking of space during the day and for less than a day. As previously noted, the system includes an application(s) or program(s) that may provide or use a business logic layer and database which stores information about the hotel, such as its rates and inventory. Additionally, the application(s) or program(s) may interface directly with the channel managers, the hotel administration, and the consumer requests from online and/or mobile applications.)
-the management server side control means comprises an application receiver that receives the application for extension transmitted from the application transmitter, and (Moati[0066] In one embodiment, the platform may be able to directly offer rooms or other services to customers, receive user input, send confirmation to the hotel and the client, calculate and store commission, save user profile and preferences, search and list lodging space, manage inventory and promotions, provide business intelligence for hotel managers, receive and send an input to other systems (such as PMS), among others.)
-the management side reservation manager changes the usage end time and updates the management side reservation information on the basis of the application for extension received by the application receiver.(Moati [0039] In one embodiment, a customer 109 will have an opportunity to request an extension (e.g., via a one-click overnight extension whereby a notification will be sent to the customer when the end of their reservation is approaching and allow the customer to book the same room for another period or convert to a traditional overnight/daily booking). If the user selects yes then the hotel is notified and the user may remain in the user’s room(s) or may be asked/offered to move into another room. In one embodiment, once the consumer is checked out, the user is sent a receipt for the stay and a history is stored in their application or online for later access.[0040] In one embodiment, the back end interfaces directly with the channel managers, the provider administrator (e.g., hotel administrator) interface, and/or the consumer requests received from online and/or client applications. In one embodiment, the business layer contains logic code which enables the intra-day booking functionality for consumers, providers (e.g., hotel managers), system administrators, etc. to manipulate the system. In one embodiment, the intra-day booking system 111 may interface directly with a hotel property management system 105 for effectuating an intra-day reservation of a resource for one or more customers.) Since Moati’s system enables a user to stay past their reservation and the hotel property management system has effectuated the intra-day reservation request, Moati teaches updating the management side reservation information after changing the usage end time.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to further modify the combination of Brophy, Cobb and Moati by adding Moati’s feature of transmitting, receiving, processing an extension request, and updating the reservation information. This would add onto Brophy’s existing system which allows guests to request reservations to touring, and make changes to the reservation, but does not specifically teach an application for an extension request. Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the combination as it would provide the benefit of providing flexibility to the users, and easy system to request an extension that can be done automatically. (Moati [0043])
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim 10 have been amended to correctly the preamble, thus the claim objections to claim 10 are withdrawn.
The claim interpretation of the claims under 112(f) stands, as the applicant has acknowledged and accepted the Examiner’s analysis under 112(f) without traverse.
Regarding the applicant’s remarks over the 101 rejections, the applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the reasons herein. The applicant’s assertion that the core improvement lies in the behavior-pattern analysis: “instead of merely recording or transmitting video, the claimed device evaluates captured user movements against stored samples of normal use patterns.” However, when claimed at the level of generality of which it is claimed, the comparison falls within “managing personal behavior, interactions, or relationships between individuals” because comparing user movements against existing samples, is not recited a technical step. Other than merely instructing the abstract idea to be performed on a generic computing device, nothing in the claims meaningfully limits the claim such that it is significantly more than the abstract idea. In other words, the claims must do more than claiming the idea or outcome of “distinguishing between authorized, ordinary building use and abnormal, potentially harmful behavior” in order to be considered significantly more than mere instructions to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, the applicant’s alleged improvements of “reducing the need for human monitoring, increases detecting speed, and filters out normal activity that would otherwise trigger false alarms, is not persuasive because no technical improvement has been recited. And even if the improvements were reflected in the claims, the improvements must be brought upon by the additional elements. MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) states “Notably, the court did not distinguish between the types of technology when determining the invention improved technology. However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology.”
Furthermore, the applicant’s arguments regarding the closed-loop communication architecture have been fully considered but are not persuasive because they merely recited the use of devices in their ordinary capacity (using servers, or other communication means to communicate information). There is no improvement to a computing or communication architecture, even when considering the additional elements individually or as a combination, because the use of sensors across devices and networks still falls within “apply it.” Therefore, applicant’s argument that the claimed arrangement uses image analysis, stored behavioral models, and coordinated device/server communication to create a system that is more accurate, less error-prone, and more effective in unmanned environments, is not persuasive because even when viewing the claims as a whole, the claims are no more than mere instructions to perform the abstract idea (as software steps), on a generic computing device with generic computing components (server, control means, storage, communication, image capturing means). The claims do not provide an improvement to computing and sensing technology, due to the generality of the limitations, which fail to reflect a specific technical improvement to any field. Therefore, claims 1-3, and 6-10 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding the applicant’s remarks over the prior art rejections, the applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the reasons herein. The amendments to claim 1 includes elements introduced from previously presented claim 4. Particularly, “wherein the building monitoring device further comprises an image capturing means that captures images of the inside of the building; and
- the building monitoring device side control means comprises:
- a storage that stores a sample of a normal behavior pattern for use of the building;
- a behavior pattern obtainer that obtains a captured behavior pattern of a user of the building on the basis of the images captured by the image capturing means; and
- a behavior pattern determiner that compares the sample of the normal behavior pattern stored in the storage with the captured behavior pattern obtained by the behavior pattern obtainer, determines whether there is a difference, and detects the abnormality having occurred inside the building when the behavior pattern determiner has determined that there is the difference.”
In regards to these amendments in particular, the applicant argues that the prior art of reference relied upon to teach the claims above fails to satisfy the limitation, however the examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to the applicant’s assertion that the “output of the computer vision described in Cobb 9:55-59 is not compared to new clusters in Cobb 1:30-33.” Given the broadest reasonable interpretation of “captured behavior pattern of a user on the basis of the images captured by the image capturing means,” which includes any form of data that indicates user behavior patterns based on image data, Cobb’s kinematic data vectors falls within the scope of the limitation. The applicant’s argument that the kinematic data vectors are not compared to new clusters is not persuasive because in Cobb 20:60-64, “ if the input to a trained ART network does not match any cluster or when the input maps to a "rare" or "immature" cluster. For example, using the vigilance parameter, it is possible that an input will not match any existing ART cluster.” The determination of whether the inputs match to existing clusters, satisfies the “comparison” limitation.
Therefore, the applicant’s argument that alleges that Cobb teaches “a sequence of primitive events is generated directly from the computer vision output, and the primitive events are fed into a cortex model component including clustering layers. In other words, instead of the computer vision engine output being compared to clusters, labels associated with the computer vision engine output are used as input to the clusters” is not persuasive. While the applicant’s assertions above do reflect Cobb’s teachings, the labels being used as input to the clusters does not automatically indicate that there is no “comparison” taking place. Based on at least Cobb [Col. 9 Lines 55-59] In one embodiment, the primitive event detector 212 may be configured to receive the output of the computer vision engine 135 (i.e., the video images, context event stream) and generate a sequence of primitive events--labeling the observed actions or behaviors in the video with semantic meaning. [Col. 10 Lines 40-60] identify anomalous events, based on the prior observations of the scene as represented by the then existing state of the sequencing/clustering layers 245. For example, if a current input (e.g., a kinematic data vector) does not map to an ART network cluster with a probability of mapped to that is above a specified threshold, relative to the input data being mapped to other clusters in that ART network, a cluster anomaly may be issued. [Col. 15 Line 61 – Col. 16 Line 4] Further, over time, as the new clusters mature, the cluster layer 600 may treat input data mapping to such clusters as being representative of an observation of normal behavior. Thus, when input data (e.g., a kinematic data vectors) maps to a cluster in ART network 625 that has not matured--it may represent a new emergent behavior or the observation of an anomalous event (at that layer of the cortex model component 240). Accordingly, in one embodiment, the ART network 625 may issue an alert to users of the video surveillance system when such an event occurs.), Cobb is still shown to teach the limitation in the updated rejection above, satisfying each and every limitation. Therefore, the applicant’s argument that Cobb does not teach or suggest “detecting an abnormality based on a comparison of a captured behavior patterns to a sample of a normal behavior pattern, is not persuasive because Cobb teaches a specific technique that falls within the broader scope of the claims, and the present claims merely recite the idea or outcome of the solution, without specifying a particular technique or mechanism to arrive at the outcome. Therefore, claims 1-4 and 6-10 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Siminoff et al. (US 20180357870 A1) discloses a storage of a sample of normal pattern behavior ([0178] temporal behavior patterns that correspond to normal behavior), a behavior pattern obtained ([0065] event signals defining a temporal event sequence that does not match any temporal behavior pattern), a comparison between the normal behavior patterns and obtained behavior ([0109] In block 806, the method 800 compares the temporal event sequence to at least one temporal behavior pattern).
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 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 NICO LAUREN PADUA whose telephone number is (703)756-1978. The examiner can normally be reached Mon to Fri: 8:30 to 5:00pm.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached on (571) 270-3445. 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.
/NICO L PADUA/ Junior Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/JESSICA LEMIEUX/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights