DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the Pre-Brief Appeal conference decision filed on May 12, 2026 in application 18/301,923.
Claims 1-36 are presented for examination.
IDS submitted on June 19, 2025, March 3, 2025, November 11, 2024, September 6, 2024, May 20, 2024, January 25, 2024, November 20, 2023, September 15, 2023 and (9 filings on) July 14, 2023 were acknowledged.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on April 13, 2026 was in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements were considered by the Examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-36 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-17, 19-20, 22-26, 28-29 and 31-35 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-12, 14, 17-21, 23, 26-30, 32 and 35-36 of U.S. Patent No. 11,665,617.
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-17, 19-20, 22-26, 28-29 and 31-35 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 21, 30-31, 33, 36-37 and 44-49 of U.S. Patent No. 11,284,331.
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-17, 19-20, 22-26, 28-29 and 31-35 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 8,635,499.
Claims 1-8, 10-17, 19-26 and 28-35 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 4, 8 of U.S. Patent No. 10,275,999.
Claims 1-8, 10-17, 19-26 and 28-35 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 8, 10, 12, 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,129,858.
Claims 1-36 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 4, 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,601,865.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scopes of the claims are broader but otherwise recite similar limitations.
Current App. 18/301,923
Patent 11,665,617 (17/650,324)
Patent 11,284,331 (14/159,739)
Patent 8,635,499 (12/770,253)
Claim 1
A method comprising:
based on receiving data indicating a state of a premises management system, causing, by a first device, initiation of a delay timer;
determining a communication interruption in a network connection between the first device and the premises management system; and
based on the communication interruption and expiration of the delay timer, sending, to a second device, an indication of the state of the premises management system.
Claim 1, 5-6
A method comprising:
determining, by a first device and based on data received from a premises management system, a state of the premises management system; (refer to claim 506 for delay timer)
determining a state of a network connection between the first device and the premises management system; and
(refer to claim 5 for expiration of delay time period)
sending, to a second device and based on the state of the premises management system and the state of the network connection, an indication of the state of the premises management system.
5. (Original) The method of claim 1, wherein the sending the indication of the state of the premises management system is based on an expiration of a pre-defined delay time period.
6. (Original) The method of claim 5, wherein the pre-defined delay time period commences based on receipt of the data from the premises management system.
Claim 44, 48
A method comprising: receiving, by a first device in communication with a premises management system, data, wherein the premises management system is located at a premises and the first device is located external to the premises, and wherein the first device is in communication, via a network connection, with the premises management system;
(refer to claim 48 for expiration of delay time period)
determining, based on the data, a state of the premises management system;
determining a state of the network connection; and
sending, to a second device and based on the state of the premises management system and the state of the network connection, an indication of the state of the premises management system.
(refer to claim 48 for expiration of delay time period)
Claim 48
The method of claim 44, wherein the sending the indication of the state of the premises management system is based on an expiration of a pre-defined delay time period.
Claim 1
A method comprising: receiving state information of a remote network node by a server over a first network connection;
the server receiving an entry delay timer initiation notification message from the remote network node;
the server initiating a delay window timer in response to the entry delay timer initiation notification message; determining that a loss of communication has occurred between the remote network node and the server over the first network connection after the server initiates the delay window timer;
in response to said the determining; and in response to an expiration of the delay window timer, transmitting a message to a second remote device over a second network connection, wherein the content of the message is defined by the state information.
Claim 2
The method of claim 1, wherein the data indicating the state of the premises management system is indicative of a state of at least one premises device of the premises management system.
Claim 2
The method of claim 1, wherein the data is indicative of a state of at least one premises device of the premises management system.
Claim 45
The method of claim 44, wherein the data is indicative of a state of at least one premises device of the premises management system.
Claim 1
transmitting a message to a second remote device over a second network connection, wherein the content of the message is defined by the state information.
Claim 3
Claim 4
The method of claim 2, wherein the at least one premises device comprises at least one of an alarm or a sensor.
Claim 3
The method of claim 1, wherein the state of the premises management system comprises an alarm state.
Claim 46
The method of claim 44, wherein the state of the premises management system comprises an alarm state.
Claim 2-3
Claim 3
The method of claim 2 further comprising: receiving a sensor event notification message from the remote network node, wherein said the receiving the sensor event notification message and entry delay timer initiation message occurs prior to the loss of communication; and defining the content of the message to the second remote device as an alarm message.
Claim 5
The method of claim 1, wherein the state of the premises management system comprises an alarm state.
Claim 3
The method of claim 1, wherein the state of the premises management system comprises an alarm state.
Claim 46
The method of claim 44, wherein the state of the premises management system comprises an alarm state.
Claim 2-3
Claim 3
The method of claim 2 further comprising: receiving a sensor event notification message from the remote network node, wherein said the receiving the sensor event notification message and entry delay timer initiation message occurs prior to the loss of communication; and defining the content of the message to the second remote device as an alarm message.
Claim 6
The method of claim 1, wherein the delay timer is configured to expire based on an expiration of a pre-defined time period.
Claim 5
The method of claim 1, wherein the sending the indication of the state of the premises management system is based on an expiration of a pre-defined delay time period.
Claim 48
The method of claim 44, wherein the sending the indication of the state of the premises management system is based on an expiration of a pre-defined delay time period.
Claim 1
in response to said the determining; and in response to an expiration of the delay window timer, transmitting a message to a second remote device over a second network connection, wherein the content of the message is defined by the state information.
Claim 7
The method of claim 1, wherein the state of the premises management system comprises an event detected by the premises management system.
Claim 8
The method of claim 1, wherein the state of the premises management system comprises an event detected by the premises management system.
Claim 49
The method of claim 44, wherein the method further comprises: initiating, based on the receiving the data, a timer, wherein the timer is configured to be stopped based on receiving an indication of a changed state of the premises management system; and wherein the determining the state of the network connection is based on an elapsed time of the timer.
Claim 1
the server initiating a delay window timer in response to the entry delay timer initiation notification message; determining that a loss of communication has occurred between the remote network node and the server over the first network connection after the server initiates the delay window timer
Claim 8
The method of claim 1, wherein the communication interruption in the network connection comprises a loss of the network connection.
Claim 9
The method of claim 1, wherein the state of the network connection comprises a loss of the network connection.
Claim 47
wherein the state of the network connection is indicative of a communication interruption in the network connection.
Claim 1
the server determining that a loss of communication has occurred between the remote network node and the server over the first network connection after the server initiates the delay window timer
Claim 9
Claim 10
Claim 10
Claim 21
Claim 1
Claim 11
Claim 11
Claim 30
Claim 2-3
Claim 12
Claim 13
Claim 12
Claim 31
Claim 2-3
Claim 14
Claim 12
Claim 31
Claim 2-3
Claim 15
Claim 14
Claim 33
Claim 1
Claim 16
Claim 17
Claim 36
Claim 1
Claim 17
Claim 18
Claim 37
Claim 1
Claim 18
Claim 19
Claim 19
Claim 21
Claim 1
Claim 20
Claim 20
Claim 30
Claim 2-3
Claim 21
Claim 22
Claim 21
Claim 31
Claim 2-3
Claim 23
Claim 21
Claim 31
Claim 2-3
Claim 24
Claim 23
Claim 33
Claim 1
Claim 25
Claim 26
Claim 36
Claim 1
Claim 26
Claim 27
Claim 37
Claim 1
Claim 27
Claim 28
Claim 28
Claim 21
Claim 1
Claim 29
Claim 29
Claim 30
Claim 2-3
Claim 30
Claim 31
Claim 30
Claim 31
Claim 2-3
Claim 32
Claim 30
Claim 31
Claim 2-3
Claim 33
Claim 32
Claim 33
Claim 1
Claim 34
Claim 35
Claim 36
Claim 1
Claim 35
Claim 36
Claim 37
Claim 1
Claim 36
It is noted that the other claim sets recited similar limitations as the first claim set and therefore would be rejected similarly.
Current App. 18/301,923
Patent 10,275,999 (14/159,665)
Patent 11,129,084 (15/783,858)
Patent 11,601,865 (16/356,742)
Claim 1
A method comprising:
based on receiving data indicating a state of a premises management system, causing, by a first device, initiation of a delay timer;
determining a communication interruption in a network connection between the first device and the premises management system; and
based on the communication interruption and expiration of the delay timer, sending, to a second device, an indication of the state of the premises management system.
Claim 1
A method comprising: receiving, by a computing device and from a node of a security, monitoring, and automation (SMA) system, state information indicative of a state of the node, wherein the computing device is in communication, via a network connection, with the node, and wherein the SMA system is located at a premises and the computing device is located external to the premises;
determining a loss of communication, via the network connection, between the node and the computing device; and
based on the determining the loss of communication and determining that an elapsed time from a time of the receiving the state information (this teach of the delay timer) complies with a threshold duration, sending, to a remote computing device, a message indicating the state information.
Claim 1
A system comprising: a premises management system located at a premises and configured to monitor the premises; and a server located external to the premises, wherein the server is configured to: communicate with, via a network connection, the premises management system; receive, via the network connection, from the premises management system, and at a first time, first status data associated with the premises management system; determine, at a second time, a loss of communication between the server and the premises management system via the network connection; receive, from the premises management system, second status data associated with the premises management system; and based on receiving the second status data and before an amount of time from either the first time or the second time satisfies a delay threshold, (this is equated to the delay timer) send, to a computing device located external to the premises, a message indicating at least the first status data or the second status data.
Claim 1
A method comprising: receiving, by a first computing device and from a premises device, state information indicative of a state of the premises device; determining a loss of communication between the premises device and the first computing device; determining that sensor event information was received prior to the determining the loss of communication; and based on the receiving the state information, the determining the loss of communication and that sensor event information was received prior to the determining the loss of communication, and determining that an elapsed time (this is equated to the delay timer) from the determining the loss of communication between the premises device and the first computing device satisfies a threshold duration, sending, to a second computing device located remotely from the first computing device, an indication of the state information.
Claim 2
The method of claim 1, wherein the data indicating the state of the premises management system is indicative of a state of at least one premises device of the premises management system.
Claim 1
receiving, by a computing device and from a node of a security, monitoring, and automation (SMA) system, state information indicative of a state of the node,
Claim 1
receive, via the network connection, from the premises management system, and at a first time, first status data associated with the premises management system
Claim 1
receiving, by a first computing device and from a premises device, state information indicative of a state of the premises device;
Claim 3
The method of claim 2, wherein the state of the at least one premises device comprises at least one of a triggered state, an armed state, or an unarmed state.
Claim 2-8
Claim 8
The method of claim 2, wherein based on the state information indicating that the node is not armed, the sending the message is further based on a status of the network connection.
Claim 14
The system of claim 1, wherein at least one of the second status data or the first status data indicates that a state of the premises management system is one of armed or disarmed, and wherein sending the message is further based on the indication that the state of the premises management system is one of armed or disarmed.
Claim 4
The method of claim 1, wherein the state of the premises device comprises at least one of a triggered state, an armed state, or an unarmed state.
Claim 4
The method of claim 2, wherein the at least one premises device comprises at least one of an alarm or a sensor.
Claim 4
The method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises sending, to another remote computing device, the message, wherein the another remote computing device comprises an alarm monitoring central station.
Claim 8, 12
Claim 12
The system of claim 8, wherein the premises device comprises at least one of a security sensor, a camera, a video camera, a home automation device, a light, an appliance, an environmental device, a thermostat, a heating device, a cooling device, a door sensor, a window sensor, a motion detector, a glass break detector, an inertial detector, a water detector, or a carbon dioxide detector.
Claim 2
The method of claim 1, wherein the premises device comprises at least one of an alarm or a sensor.
Claim 5
The method of claim 1, wherein the state of the premises management system comprises an alarm state.
Claim 4
The method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises sending, to another remote computing device, the message, wherein the another remote computing device comprises an alarm monitoring central station.
Claim 8, 10
Claim 10
The system of claim 8, wherein the state of the premises device comprises a triggered state of the premises device.
Claim 2
The method of claim 1, wherein the premises device comprises at least one of an alarm or a sensor.
Claim 6
The method of claim 1, wherein the delay timer is configured to expire based on an expiration of a pre-defined time period.
Claim 1
based on the determining the loss of communication and determining that an elapsed time from a time of the receiving the state information complies with a threshold duration,
Claim 1
determine, at a second time, a loss of communication between the server and the premises management system via the network connection; receive, from the premises management system, second status data associated with the premises management system; and based on receiving the second status data and before an amount of time from either the first time or the second time satisfies a delay threshold
Claim 1
determining that an elapsed time from the determining the loss of communication between the premises device and the first computing device satisfies a threshold duration.
Claim 7
The method of claim 1, wherein the state of the premises management system comprises an event detected by the premises management system.
Claim 1
receiving, by a computing device and from a node of a security, monitoring, and automation (SMA) system, state information indicative of a state of the node,
….
determining a loss of communication, via the network connection, between the node and the computing device; and based on the determining the loss of communication and determining that an elapsed time from a time of the receiving the state information complies with a threshold duration,
Claim 1
determine, at a second time, a loss of communication between the server and the premises management system via the network connection
Claim 1
receiving, by a first computing device and from a premises device, state information indicative of a state of the premises device.
Claim 8
The method of claim 1, wherein the communication interruption in the network connection comprises a loss of the network connection.
Claim 1
determining a loss of communication, via the network connection, between the node and the computing device; and based on the determining the loss of communication and determining that an elapsed time from a time of the receiving the state information complies with a threshold duration,
Claim 1
determine, at a second time, a loss of communication between the server and the premises management system via the network connection
Claim 1
determining a loss of communication between the premises device and the first computing device
Claim 9
The method of claim 1, further comprising sending, to the second device, a request for emergency assistance.
Claim 9
The method of claim 1, further comprising sending, to the second computing device, a request for emergency assistance.
Claim 10
Claim 1
Claim 1
Claim 1
Claim 11
Claim 1
Claim 2
Claim 1
Claim 12
Claim 2-8
Claim 14
Claim 4
Claim 13
Claim 4
Claim 8, 12
Claim 2
Claim 14
Claim 4
Claim 8, 10
Claim 2
Claim 15
Claim 1
Claim 1
Claim 1
Claim 16
Claim 1
Claim 1
Claim 1
Claim 17
Claim 1
Claim 1
Claim 1
Claim 18
Claim 9
Claim 19
Claim 1
Claim 1
Claim 1
Claim 20
Claim 1
Claim 2
Claim 1
Claim 21
Claim 28
Claim 14
Claim 4
Claim 22
Claim 4
Claim 8, 12
Claim 2
Claim 23
Claim 4
Claim 8, 10
Claim 2
Claim 24
Claim 1
Claim 1
Claim 1
Claim 25
Claim 1
Claim 1
Claim 1
Claim 26
Claim 1
Claim 1
Claim 1
Claim 27
Claim 9
Claim 28
Claim 1
Claim 1
Claim 1
Claim 29
Claim 1
Claim 2
Claim 1
Claim 30
Claim 2-8
Claim 14
Claim 4
Claim 31
Claim 4
Claim 8, 12
Claim 2
Claim 32
Claim 4
Claim 8, 10
Claim 2
Claim 33
Claim 1
Claim 1
Claim 1
Claim 34
Claim 1
Claim 1
Claim 1
Claim 35
Claim 1
Claim 1
Claim 1
Claim 36
Claim 9
It is noted that the other claim sets recited similar limitations as the first claim set and therefore would be rejected similarly.
"A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obviousness type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus). "ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001).
This is a nonstatutory obviousness double patenting rejection.
**********************
Claim 1-2, 4-8, 10-11, 13-17, 19-20, 22-26, 28-29, and 31-35 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 3, 6 of copending Application No. 17/443,427.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scopes of the claims are broader but otherwise recite similar limitations.
Current App. 18/301,923
Application (17/443,427)
Claim 1
A method comprising: based on receiving data indicating a state of a premises management system, causing, by a first device, initiation of a delay timer;
determining a communication interruption in a network connection between the first device and the premises management system; and
based on the communication interruption and expiration of the delay timer, sending, to a second device, an indication of the state of the premises management system.
Claim 1
A method comprising: determining, by a server device located external to a premises and based on analyzing one or more network connections associated with a premises device located at the premises, a change in a network status associated with the premises device;
initiating, by the server device and based on determining the change in the network status, a delay window; and
sending, by the server device, to a computing device, via a network and based on expiration of the delay window, a message indicative of a status of the premises.
Claim 2
The method of claim 1, wherein the data indicating the state of the premises management system is indicative of a state of at least one premises device of the premises management system.
Claim 1
determining, by a server device located external to a premises and based on analyzing one or more network connections associated with a premises device located at the premises, a change in a network status associated with the premises device
Claim 3
The method of claim 2, wherein the state of the at least one premises device comprises at least one of a triggered state, an armed state, or an unarmed state.
Claim 4
The method of claim 2, wherein the at least one premises device comprises at least one of an alarm or a sensor.
Claim 6
The method of claim 1, wherein determining the change in the network status comprises determining a loss in communication via at least a portion of the one or more network connections, and wherein the message indicates an alarm indicative of a smash and grab scenario.
Claim 5
The method of claim 1, wherein the state of the premises management system comprises an alarm state.
Claim 6
The method of claim 1, wherein determining the change in the network status comprises determining a loss in communication via at least a portion of the one or more network connections, and wherein the message indicates an alarm indicative of a smash and grab scenario.
Claim 6
The method of claim 1, wherein the delay timer is configured to expire based on an expiration of a pre-defined time period.
Claim 1
sending, by the server device, to a computing device, via a network and based on expiration of the delay window, a message indicative of a status of the premises.
Claim 7
The method of claim 1, wherein the state of the premises management system comprises an event detected by the premises management system.
Claim 3
The method of claim 1, wherein determining the change in the network status comprises determining one or more of: a loss of connection of at least a portion of the one or more network connections, an inability to communicate with the premises device, or a switch from communicating via one of the one or more network connections to another of the one or more network connections.
Claim 8
The method of claim 1, wherein the communication interruption in the network connection comprises a loss of the network connection.
Claim 3
The method of claim 1, wherein determining the change in the network status comprises determining one or more of: a loss of connection of at least a portion of the one or more network connections, an inability to communicate with the premises device, or a switch from communicating via one of the one or more network connections to another of the one or more network connections.
Claim 9
The method of claim 1, further comprising sending, to the second device, a request for emergency assistance.
Claim 10
Claim 1
Claim 11
Claim 1
Claim 12
Claim 13
Claim 6
Claim 14
Claim 6
Claim 15
Claim 1
Claim 16
Claim 3
Claim 17
Claim 3
Claim 18
Claim 19
Claim 1
Claim 20
Claim 1
Claim 21
Claim 22
Claim 6
Claim 23
Claim 6
Claim 24
Claim 1
Claim 25
Claim 3
Claim 26
Claim 3
Claim 27
Claim 28
Claim 1
Claim 29
Claim 1
Claim 30
Claim 31
Claim 6
Claim 32
Claim 6
Claim 33
Claim 1
Claim 34
Claim 3
Claim 35
Claim 3
Claim 36
It is noted that the other claim sets recited similar limitations as the first claim set and therefore would be rejected similarly.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dohrmann et al. (US 2006/0176167).
In regard to claim 1, Dohrnamm et al. teach a method comprising:
based on receiving data indicating a state of a premises management (detection of an alarm-triggering event, para. 266), causing, by a first device, initiation of a delay timer (entry delay timer, para. 266, entry delay gives the user time to open the door and disable the alarm system before burglaries are reported, para. 270);
determining a communication interruption in a network connection between the first device and the premises management (disarm signals not received, para. 271); and
based on the communication interruption (disarm signals not received, para. 271) and expiration of the delay timer (expiration of the timer, para. 271), sending, to a second device, an indication of the state of the premises management system (if a disarm signal is not received from the alarm device prior to the expiration of the timer on the external device, the external device can initiate an external alarm sequence, para. 271).
Dohrmann et al. teach of receiving status/message/reports to determine a state change but Dohrmann et al. does not explicitly teach determining a communication interruption.
It would have been obvious to modify the analyzing of one or more network connection of Dohrmann et al. to include sending and receiving a connection verification message because the verification message it is well known in the art for determining a network connection status from receiving various signals/reports (e.g. heartbeat, keepalive, ping, health check, watch dog, etc.,) to determine/analyze a disconnect in communication by a change in the network as a way to prevent a burglar from disconnecting or breaking a communication links to an external system (para. 266-280). Claim 5 also support this reasoning with further defining analyzing as receiving a heartbeat signal associated with the one or more network connections.
In regard to claim 2, Dohrmann et al. teach the method of claim 1, wherein the data indicating the state of the premises management system is indicative of a state of at least one premises device of the premises management system (FES includes a family of alarm devices where a MAU communicates via a communication links with one or more remote devices, para. 92, MAU can report to the BES for monitoring alarm and other events, para. 94).
In regard to claim 3, Dohrmann et al. teach the method of claim 2, wherein the state of the at least one premises device comprises at least one of a triggered state, an armed state, or an unarmed state (state information could be armed/disarmed states, para. 113).
In regard to claim 4, Dohrmann et al. teach the method of claim 2, wherein the at least one premises device comprises at least one of an alarm or a sensor (sensor being triggered or other alarm triggering condition, para. 266).
In regard to claim 5, Dohrmann et al. teach the method of claim 1, wherein the state of the premises management system comprises an alarm state (motion detect while the system is armed or a Panic, para. 145).
In regard to claim 6, Dohrmann et al. teach the method of claim 1, wherein the delay timer is configured to expire based on an expiration of a pre-defined time period (entry delay timer, fig. 7, 738, para. 275, 286).
In regard to claim 7, Dohrmann et al. teach the method of claim 1, wherein the state of the premises management system comprises an event detected by the premises management system (detects an alarm-triggering event, para. 271).
In regard to claim 8, Dohrmann et al. teach the method of claim 1, wherein the communication interruption in the network connection comprises a loss of the network connection (determining that a break in the communications may have occurred, para. 286, missing heartbeat period determines that the communications link is broken, para. 288).
In regard to claim 9, Dohrmann et al. teach the method of claim 1, further comprising sending, to the second device, a request for emergency assistance (external device or system initiates a disconnected alarm sequence at the central monitoring center 104D, fig. 7C, 740, para. 286, if the communication link 102f is broken, the MAU is not able to report the break-in to the central monitoring center, in view of the above problem, the external alarm sequence can include reporting the alarm condition to a central control center, para. 269, 271).
In regard to claim 10, Dohrmannet al. teach a device comprising:
one or more processors (processor, para. 87); and
memory storing instructions (memory devices, para. 88) that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the device to:
based on receiving data indicating a state of a premises management system state of a premises management (detection of an alarm-triggering event, para. 266, 271), cause initiation of a delay timer (entry delay timer, para. 266, entry delay gives the user time to open the door and disable the alarm system before burglaries are reported, para. 270-271);
determine a communication interruption in a network connection between the first device and the premises management system (disarm signals not received, para. 271); and
based on the communication interruption (disarm signals not received, para. 271) and expiration of the delay timer (expiration of the timer, para. 271), send, to a second device, an indication of the state of the premises management system (if a disarm signal is not received from the alarm device prior to the expiration of the timer on the external device, the external device can initiate an external alarm sequence, para. 271).
Dohrmann et al. teach of receiving status/message/reports to determine a state change but Dohrmann et al. does not explicitly teach determining a communication interruption.
It would have been obvious to modify the analyzing of one or more network connection of Dohrmann et al. to include sending and receiving a connection verification message because the verification message it is well known in the art for determining a network connection status from receiving various signals/reports (e.g. heartbeat, keepalive, ping, health check, watch dog, etc.,) to determine/analyze a disconnect in communication by a change in the network as a way to prevent a burglar from disconnecting or breaking a communication links to an external system (para. 266-280). Claim 5 also support this reasoning with further defining analyzing as receiving a heartbeat signal associated with the one or more network connections.
In regard to claim 11, Dohrmannet al. teach the device of claim 10, wherein the data indicating the state of the premises management system is indicative of a state of at least one premises device of the premises management system (FES includes a family of alarm devices where a MAU communicates via a communication links with one or more remote devices, para. 92, MAU can report to the BES for monitoring alarm and other events, para. 94).
In regard to claim 12, Dohrmannet al. teach the device of claim 11, wherein the state of the at least one premises device comprises at least one of a triggered state, an armed state, or an unarmed state (state information could be armed/disarmed states, para. 113).
In regard to claim 13, Dohrmannet al. teach the device of claim 11, wherein the at least one premises device comprises at least one of an alarm or a sensor (sensor being triggered or other alarm triggering condition, para. 266).
In regard to claim 14, Dohrmannet al. teach the device of claim 10, wherein the state of the premises management system comprises an alarm state (motion detect while the system is armed or a Panic, para. 145).
In regard to claim 15, Dohrmannet al. teach the device of claim 10, wherein the delay timer is configured to expire based on an expiration of a pre-defined time period (entry delay timer, fig. 7, 738, para. 275, 286).
In regard to claim 16, Dohrmannet al. teach the device of claim 10, wherein the state of the premises management system comprises an event detected by the premises management system (detects an alarm-triggering event, para. 271).
In regard to claim 17, Dohrmannet al. teach the device of claim 10, wherein the communication interruption in the network connection comprises a loss of the network connection (determining that a break in the communications may have occurred, para. 286, missing heartbeat period determines that the communications link is broken, para. 288).
In regard to claim 18, Dohrmannet al. teach the device of claim 10, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the device to send, to the second device, a request for emergency assistance (external device or system initiates a disconnected alarm sequence at the central monitoring center 104D, fig. 7C, 740, para. 286, if the communication link 102f is broken, the MAU is not able to report the break-in to the central monitoring center, in view of the above problem, the external alarm sequence can include reporting the alarm condition to a central control center, para. 269, 271).
In regard to claim 19, Dohrmannet al. teach a computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed, cause:
based on receiving data indicating a state of a premises management (detection of an alarm-triggering event, para. 266, 271), causing, by a first device, initiation of a delay timer (entry delay timer, para. 266, entry delay gives the user time to open the door and disable the alarm system before burglaries are reported, para. 270-271);
determining a communication interruption in a network connection between the first device and the premises management system (disarm signals not received, para. 271); and
based on the communication interruption (disarm signals not received, para. 271) and expiration of the delay timer (expiration of the timer, para. 271), sending, to a second device, an indication of the state of the premises management system (if a disarm signal is not received from the alarm device prior to the expiration of the timer on the external device, the external device can initiate an external alarm sequence, para. 271).
Dohrmann et al. teach of receiving status/message/reports to determine a state change but Dohrmann et al. does not explicitly teach determining a communication interruption.
It would have been obvious to modify the analyzing of one or more network connection of Dohrmann et al. to include sending and receiving a connection verification message because the verification message it is well known in the art for determining a network connection status from receiving various signals/reports (e.g. heartbeat, keepalive, ping, health check, watch dog, etc.,) to determine/analyze a disconnect in communication by a change in the network as a way to prevent a burglar from disconnecting or breaking a communication links to an external system (para. 266-280). Claim 5 also support this reasoning with further defining analyzing as receiving a heartbeat signal associated with the one or more network connections.
In regard to claim 20, Dohrmannet al. teach the computer-readable medium of claim 19, wherein the data indicating the state of the premises management system is indicative of a state of at least one premises device of the premises management system (FES includes a family of alarm devices where a MAU communicates via a communication links with one or more remote devices, para. 92, MAU can report to the BES for monitoring alarm and other events, para. 94).
In regard to claim 21, Dohrmannet al. teach the computer-readable medium of claim 20, wherein the state of the at least one premises device comprises at least one of a triggered state, an armed state, or an unarmed state (state information could be armed/disarmed states, para. 113).
In regard to claim 22, Dohrmannet al. teach the computer-readable medium of claim 20, wherein the at least one premises device comprises at least one of an alarm or a sensor (sensor being triggered or other alarm triggering condition, para. 266).
In regard to claim 23, Dohrmannet al. teach the computer-readable medium of claim 19, wherein the state of the premises management system comprises an alarm state (motion detect while the system is armed or a Panic, para. 145).
In regard to claim 24, Dohrmannet al. teach the computer-readable medium of claim 19, wherein the delay timer is configured to expire based on an expiration of a pre-defined time period (entry delay timer, fig. 7, 738, para. 275, 286).
In regard to claim 25, Dohrmannet al. teach the computer-readable medium of claim 19, wherein the state of the premises management system comprises an event detected by the premises management system (detects an alarm-triggering event, para. 271).
In regard to claim 26, Dohrmannet al. teach the computer-readable medium of claim 19, wherein the communication interruption in the network connection comprises a loss of the network connection (determining that a break in the communications may have occurred, para. 286, missing heartbeat period determines that the communications link is broken, para. 288).
In regard to claim 27, Dohrmannet al. teach the computer-readable medium of claim 19, wherein the instructions, when executed, further cause sending, to the second device, a request for emergency assistance (external device or system initiates a disconnected alarm sequence at the central monitoring center 104D, fig. 7C, 740, para. 286, if the communication link 102f is broken, the MAU is not able to report the break-in to the central monitoring center, in view of the above problem, the external alarm sequence can include reporting the alarm condition to a central control center, para. 269, 271).
In regard to claim 28, Dohrmannet al. teach a system comprising:
a second computing device (central monitoring center, fig. 1); and
a first computing device (external device, para. 282) configured to:
based on receiving data indicating a state of a premises management system (detection of an alarm-triggering event, para. 266, 271), cause initiation of a delay timer (entry delay timer, para. 266, entry delay gives the user time to open the door and disable the alarm system before burglaries are reported, para. 270-271);
determine a communication interruption in a network connection between the first device and the premises management system (disarm signals not received, para. 271); and
based on the communication interruption (disarm signals not received, para. 271) and expiration of the delay timer (expiration of the timer, para. 271), send, to the second computing device, an indication of the state of the premises management system (if a disarm signal is not received from the alarm device prior to the expiration of the timer on the external device, the external device can initiate an external alarm sequence, para. 271).
Dohrmann et al. teach of receiving status/message/reports to determine a state change but Dohrmann et al. does not explicitly teach determining a communication interruption.
It would have been obvious to modify the analyzing of one or more network connection of Dohrmann et al. to include sending and receiving a connection verification message because the verification message it is well known in the art for determining a network connection status from receiving various signals/reports (e.g. heartbeat, keepalive, ping, health check, watch dog, etc.,) to determine/analyze a disconnect in communication by a change in the network as a way to prevent a burglar from disconnecting or breaking a communication links to an external system (para. 266-280). Claim 5 also support this reasoning with further defining analyzing as receiving a heartbeat signal associated with the one or more network connections.
In regard to claim 29, Dohrmannet al. teach the system of claim 28, wherein the data indicating the state of the premises management system is indicative of a state of at least one premises device of the premises management system (FES includes a family of alarm devices where a MAU communicates via a communication links with one or more remote devices, para. 92, MAU can report to the BES for monitoring alarm and other events, para. 94).
In regard to claim 30, Dohrmannet al. teach the system of claim 29, wherein the state of the at least one premises device comprises at least one of a triggered state, an armed state, or an unarmed state (state information could be armed/disarmed states, para. 113).
In regard to claim 31, Dohrmannet al. teach the system of claim 29, wherein the at least one premises device comprises at least one of an alarm or a sensor (sensor being triggered or other alarm triggering condition, para. 266).
In regard to claim 32, Dohrmannet al. teach the system of claim 28, wherein the state of the premises management system comprises an alarm state (motion detect while the system is armed or a Panic, para. 145).
In regard to claim 33, Dohrmannet al. teach the system of claim 28, wherein the delay timer is configured to expire based on an expiration of a pre-defined time period (entry delay timer, fig. 7, 738, para. 275, 286).
In regard to claim 34, Dohrmannet al. teach the system of claim 28, wherein the state of the premises management system comprises an event detected by the premises management system (detects an alarm-triggering event, para. 271).
In regard to claim 35, Dohrmannet al. teach the system of claim 28, wherein the communication interruption in the network connection comprises a loss of the network connection (determining that a break in the communications may have occurred, para. 286, missing heartbeat period determines that the communications link is broken, para. 288).
In regard to claim 36, Dohrmannet al. teach the system of claim 28, wherein the first computing device is further configured to send, to the second computing device, a request for emergency assistance (external device or system initiates a disconnected alarm sequence at the central monitoring center 104D, fig. 7C, 740, para. 286, if the communication link 102f is broken, the MAU is not able to report the break-in to the central monitoring center, in view of the above problem, the external alarm sequence can include reporting the alarm condition to a central control center, para. 269, 271).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO 892.
Stluka et al. (US 2010/0211192) Honeywell, alarm rationalization
Havekost et al. (US 6,774,786) Alarm display
Bristol (US 6,690,274) alarm analysis
***************
Goodspeed (US 2002/0065828) home protection alarm
Carney (US 6,366,648) remote alarm system
***************
Dohrmann et al. (US 2008/0117029) reliable communication system with error protection
Elliot et al. (US 2006/0067484) security system monitoring
***************
Hess et al. (US 2012/0286951) timer for entry and exit delay
Regner et al. (US 2022/0027464) access delay timer
McGregor (US 5,986,548) intrusion alarm system
Gottsegen et al (US 4,465,904) alarm system with line severance redundant
Carney (US 5,808,547) intrusion alarm
McClure (US 5,923,731) detect cut or shorted wires
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Loan Truong whose telephone number is 408-918-7552. The examiner can normally be reached on 10AM-6PM PST M-F.
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, Ashish Thomas can be reached on 571-272-0631. 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.
/Loan L.T. Truong/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2114 HYPERLINK "mailto:Loan.truong@uspto.gov" Loan.truong@uspto.gov
Prosecution Insights