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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/26/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 12/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues: “Applicant traverses each ground of rejection contained in the Office Action. For purposes of clarity, expediency, and efficiency, not every rejection, reference, or claim may be discussed in detail. However, lack of specific discussion does not indicate Applicant's agreement with any of the rejections or references. Applicant reserves the right to argue against any reference and rejection, and for the patentability of any dependent claim in future proceedings. Every ground of rejection has been addressed by this Response and Applicant respectfully requests that the amendments and remarks presented in this Response be entered and the claims be found allowable.”
Examiner notes that Applicant does not in fact traverse each ground for rejection, because Applicant has not submitted an argument in traversal for each ground of rejection.
Regarding the newly amended language of Claim 1, Applicant argues: “Applicant respectfully submits that the cited Laurans reference does not anticipate claim 1, at least as amended. Specifically, the Laurans reference is silent on any teaching of: • determining the sensor data meets a threshold of an alarm event based on a quality of the sensor data and/or a content of the sensor data. … Laurans and Laurans2 are silent on any teaching of: • determining the sensor data meets a threshold of an alarm event based on a quality of the sensor data and/or a content of the sensor data.”
Examiner notes that materially, the present Specification is “silent on any teaching of: • determining the sensor data meets a threshold of an alarm event based on a quality of the sensor data and/or a content of the sensor data.” However, prior art appears to teach these features in the same manner as they are described in the Specification. See updated reasons for rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 21 is directed to “wherein determining the sensor data meets a threshold of an alarm event further comprises; initially determining the sensor data indicates an unsure level of meeting the threshold of the alarm event; causing other sensors to collect other sensor data; and determining that the sensor data combined with the other sensor data meets the threshold of the alarm event,” however Specification does not support the terms “initially determining the sensor data indicates … an unsure level … meeting the threshold of the alarm event … sensor data combined with the other sensor data meets the threshold of the alarm event.” Examiner did not find support for the claimed features in the Specification.
Also note that Claims 1-21 recite “determining the sensor data meets a threshold of an alarm event based on a quality of the sensor data and/or a content of the sensor data;” using terms that are also not found in the Specification. However, the claim language broadly covers “monitoring sensor data, detecting the presence of alarm conditions, and so on,” as understood in the art and supported in Specification, Page 7, lines 27-28. The Office Action proceeds based on this claim construction.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 7, 11-13, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by US 20210360446 to Laurans (“Laurans”).
Regarding Claim 1: “A system comprising:
a server; (See Laurans, Paragraph 35.)
a security gateway in communication with the server by way of a network, (Prior art calls this device “a base station or other controller that controls operations of an alarm system at the location,” Laurans, Paragraphs 4, 35. There is also a network “gateway 4” in Laurans, Paragraph 35. “the base station 3 [security gateway] can communicate with the server 5 via a network …” Laurans, Paragraph 35.)
wherein the security gateway is installed at a location under surveillance; (“components that are at the location 101 include a camera 1, one or more other sensors 2, and a base station 3 or local controller,” See Laurans, Paragraphs 34-35. In the example illustrated in Laurans, Fig. 1, both the base station 3 [security gateway] and the gateway 4 are installed at the location under surveillance 101.)
a first camera in communication with the security gateway, wherein the first camera is installed at the location under surveillance; and (“components that are at the location 101 include a camera 1, … The gateway 4 provides a network connection for the camera 1 and the base station 3 [the security gateway].” Laurans, Paragraph 35.)
a sensor in communication with the security gateway; (The security gateway, “the base station 3 includes a controller 33” Laurans, Paragraph 38. “The signal can be received at the camera and/or at the controller [part of the base station] in response to a sensor that is part of the camera, or remote from the camera ( e.g., a sensor that is part of an alarm system or other monitoring system), detecting motion, the presence of people or objects, a sound (breaking glass), or other condition that triggers a desire to record video image data at the camera” Laurans, Paragraphs 13, and 52-53.)
wherein the security gateway comprises a processor configured to execute instructions comprising: (The security gateway, “base station 3 includes a controller 33 having an image processing module 34, … the controllers 11, 33 can include a data processing device for implementing software or other computer-implemented instructions,” Laurans, Paragraph 38.)
receiving (“a controller can be a base station 3 at the location that communicates with [receives data from] various sensors of the monitoring system 100, such as door and window sensors, cameras, water sensors, smoke and fire sensors, etc., that detects an alarm condition at the location [under the surveillance] … that some event has occurred.” Laurans, Paragraphs 52-53. “a sensor that is part of the camera, or remote from the camera” Laurans, Paragraph 13.)
determining the sensor data meets a threshold of an alarm event based on a quality of the sensor data and/or a content of the sensor data; (Specification does not support the terms “a threshold of an alarm event” or “quality of the sensor data and/or a content of the sensor data.” Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and ordinary skill in the art, this element embodies “monitoring sensor data, detecting the presence of alarm conditions, and so on.” See Specification, Page 7, lines 27-28. Prior art teaches such embodiments: “a controller can be a base station 3 at the location that communicates with various sensors of the monitoring system 100, such as door and window sensors, cameras, water sensors, smoke and fire sensors, etc., that detects an alarm condition at the location [under the surveillance] … that some event has occurred. ( e.g., movement, a loud noise, etc.)” Laurans, Paragraphs 52-53. Note that the detection of an alarm condition or an event occurrence based on sensor data indicates that a threshold has been crossed from not detecting to detecting based on quality and/or quantity of the sensor data.)
in response to determining the alarm event, selecting the first camera from a plurality of cameras based on a proximity of the first camera to the sensor; and (“if the location 101 has multiple cameras 1, … if one or more conditions at the location 101 are detected (e.g., movement around a house), the base station 3 can activate one or more cameras 1 to record and send video image data” Laurans, Paragraphs 36, 40. For example where “a sensor that is part of the camera,” or where “sensor 18 can detect the presence of people or motion in a field of view [proximity] of the camera 1 and provide a suitable signal to the MCU to cause the controller 11 to activate the imaging module 15 and capture video image data.” See Laurans, Paragraphs 44, 13. Also note a broader embodiment where the camera 1 is selected if it in the same monitoring location 101 as the sensor 2, and cameras in other locations are not selected if they are in another monitoring location and thus at a further proximity from sensor 2. See Laurans, Paragraphs 53, 34-35, and Fig. 1.)
in response to determining the alarm event, instructing the first camera to capture a series of image frames.” (“a controller can be a base station 3 at the location that communicates with various sensors of the monitoring system 100, such as door and window sensors, cameras, water sensors, smoke and fire sensors, etc., that detects an alarm condition at the location of the camera or otherwise that the camera should capture image data. … camera should record video image data.” Laurans, Paragraphs 53, 44.)
Regarding Claim 2: “The system of claim 1,
wherein the sensor is a smoke sensor in communication with the security gateway, and wherein the instructions further comprise: … receiving a sensor readout from the smoke sensor indicating that smoke is detected; and (“a controller can be a base station 3 [security gateway] at the location that communicates with various sensors of the monitoring system 100, such as door and window sensors, cameras, water sensors, smoke and fire sensors, etc., that detects an alarm condition at the location of the camera or otherwise that the camera should capture image data. … camera should record video image data.” Laurans, Paragraph 53.)
in response to receiving the sensor readout, instructing the camera to capture the series of image frames.” (“a controller can be a base station 3 at the location that communicates with various sensors of the monitoring system 100, such as door and window sensors, cameras, water sensors, smoke and fire sensors, etc., that detects an alarm condition at the location of the camera or otherwise that the camera should capture image data. … camera should record video image data.” Laurans, Paragraph 53.)
Regarding Claim 7: “The system of claim 1, wherein the sensor is
an egress sensor in communication with the security gateway, wherein the egress sensor comprises one or more of a door sensor or a glass break sensor, and (“a controller can be a base station 3 at the location that communicates with various sensors of the monitoring system 100, such as door and window sensors, cameras, water sensors, smoke and fire sensors, etc., that detects an alarm condition at the location of the camera or otherwise that the camera should capture image data. … camera should record video image data.” Laurans, Paragraph 52. Also note “base station 3 to determine alarm state is present ( e.g., a sensor 2 that detects breaking glass).” Laurans, Paragraph 53.)
wherein the instructions further comprise: receiving a sensor readout from the egress sensor indicating that one or more of a door has been opened or a glass panel has been broken; and (“a controller can be a base station 3 at the location that communicates with various sensors of the monitoring system 100, such as door and window sensors, cameras, water sensors, smoke and fire sensors, etc., that detects an alarm condition at the location of the camera or otherwise that the camera should capture image data. … camera should record video image data.” Laurans, Paragraph 52. Also note “base station 3 to determine alarm state is present ( e.g., a sensor 2 that detects breaking glass).” Laurans, Paragraph 53.)
in response to receiving the sensor readout, instructing the camera to capture the series of image frames.” (“a controller can be a base station 3 at the location that communicates with various sensors of the monitoring system 100, such as door and window sensors, cameras, water sensors, smoke and fire sensors, etc., that detects an alarm condition at the location of the camera or otherwise that the camera should capture image data. … camera should record video image data.” Laurans, Paragraph 53.)
Regarding Claim 11: “The system of claim 1, wherein the first camera is a component of a security device comprising: (Note that since the system of Claim 11 comprises the camera but not the components of the security device, Claim 11 is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 1. See cumulative reasons for rejection below.)
the first camera; (“a camera arranged to capture video image data” Paragraph 4.)
a high-frequency antenna configured to receive and transmit data over a wireless local area network; and (“The camera can include a first communications module arranged to send the video image data to the remote server via a first communications network having a first minimum bandwidth. … the first communications module can be a wifi” Paragraph 4.)
a low-frequency radio transceiver configured to receive and transmit data.” (“The camera can include a second communications module arranged to communicate via a second communications network. The second communications module can be a sub-GHz protocol module that allows the camera to communicate using a sub-GHz protocol network” Paragraph 5.)
Regarding Claim 12: “The system of claim 11, wherein the security device communicates with the security gateway by way of the high-frequency antenna.” (Note that since the system of Claims 11 and 12 comprise the camera but not the components of the security device, Claim 12 is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 1. Cumulatively, “” Laurans, Paragraph 9.)
Regarding Claim 13: “The system of claim 11, wherein
the security device communicates with a user device by way of the low-frequency radio transceiver, and (“the base station can receive a signal from the remote server, user or other device … As another alternative, the camera and base station can establish a communications link using a different communications protocol and/or devices than wifi, such as a low power consumption (and low bandwidth) communications protocol, such as a sub-GHz communications protocol, and can do so at the initiation of the camera, server or other component of the monitoring system.” Laurans, Paragraph 31.)
wherein the user device provides the security device with login details for communicating with the server by way of the wireless local area network.” (“As another alternative, the camera and base station can establish a communications link using a different communications protocol and/or devices than wifi, such as a low power consumption (and low bandwidth) communications protocol, such as a sub-GHz communications protocol, and can do so at the initiation [login] of the camera, server or other component of the monitoring system.” Laurans, Paragraph 31.)
Regarding Claim 17: “The system of claim 1, wherein the sensor is
an infrared motion detection sensor in communication with the security gateway, and wherein the instructions further comprise: (“a controller can be a base station 3 at the location that communicates with various sensors of the monitoring system 100, such as door and window sensors, cameras, water sensors, smoke and fire sensors, etc., that detects an alarm condition at the location of the camera or otherwise that the camera should capture image data. … camera should record video image data.” Laurans, Paragraph 52. Also note “other components (e.g., a motion detector (e.g., a non-imager based detector (e.g., an infrared sensor)))” Laurans, Paragraphs 53, 32, 39.)
receiving an output signal from the infrared motion detection sensor, wherein the output signal indicates a change in infrared energy due to motion; and (“a controller can be a base station 3 at the location that communicates with various sensors of the monitoring system 100, such as door and window sensors, cameras, water sensors, smoke and fire sensors, etc., that detects an alarm condition at the location of the camera or otherwise that the camera should capture image data. … camera should record video image data.” Laurans, Paragraph 52. Also note “other components (e.g., a motion detector (e.g., a non-imager based detector (e.g., an infrared sensor)))” Laurans, Paragraphs 53, 32, 39.)
instructing the first camera to capture a series of image frames in response to the change in infrared energy due to the motion.” (“a controller can be a base station 3 at the location that communicates with various sensors of the monitoring system 100, such as door and window sensors, cameras, water sensors, smoke and fire sensors, etc. [infra red sensors], that detects an alarm condition at the location of the camera or otherwise that the camera should capture image data. … camera should record video image data.” Laurans, Paragraphs 53, 39.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground 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 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 3-6, 9-10, 14-16, 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210360446 to Laurans (“Laurans”) in view of US 10657795 Laurans (“Laurans2”).
Regarding Claim 3: “The system of claim 2, further comprising a thermometer in communication with the security gateway, and wherein the instructions further comprise, in response to receiving the sensor readout, instructing the thermometer to capture a current temperature reading.” (“Monitoring of the location 101 can involve any variety of different functions, such as detecting and analyzing conditions, such as … abnormally high/low temperatures … base station 3, controlling operation of the local components” Laurans, Paragraphs 34-35, 52-53.
Laurans does not explicitly teach integration of a thermometer such as a temperature sensor to capture a current temperature reading.
Laurans2 teaches this feature in the context on networked cameras and security devices: “a temperature and/or water sensor 19 to detect a temperature” Laurans2, Column 10, line 40.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to supplement the teachings of Laurans to use a temperature sensor to capture a current temperature reading as taught in Laurans2, in order to detect temperatures. ” Laurans, Paragraphs 34-35, 52-53 and Laurans2, Column 10, line 40.
Finally, in reviewing the present application, there does not seem to be objective evidence that the claim limitations are particularly directed to: addressing a particular problem which was recognized but unsolved in the art, producing unexpected results at the level of the ordinary skill in the art, or any other objective indicators of non-obviousness.
Regarding Claim 4: “The system of claim 2, wherein the system comprises
a plurality of cameras, (“if the location 101 has multiple cameras” Laurans, Paragraph 36.)
and wherein the instructions further comprise: selecting a first camera of the plurality of cameras based on a proximity of the first camera to the [smoke] sensor; and (“In some embodiments, the camera 1 can include [thus being most proximate to] a passive infrared sensor, ultrasonic sensor or other device that can detect movement and/or the presence of various objects and a signal from such a sensor can be used by the controller 11 to activate the imager module 15 to detect image data from an area of interest, such as a field of view of the imager module 15.” Laurans, Paragraph 38.)
Laurans does not explicitly teach that the proximate sensor is a “smoke sensor,” but it indicates substitutability for another sensor or device to be included with the camera. Laurans separately teaches that a smoke sensor is one of the considered sensors in Paragraphs 34, 52.
Laurans2 similarly teaches that “a variety of different sensors that may be employed by the alarm system to detect conditions at the building 3, such as … a smoke (including carbon monoxide) and/or fire detector 17,” Laurans2, Column 10, lines 25-38.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a smoke sensor as another sensor or device that can be used to activate the most proximate camera based on the activity in its field of view. See Laurans, Paragraph 38 and Laurans2, Column 10, lines 25-38
Finally, in reviewing the present application, there does not seem to be objective evidence that the claim limitations are particularly directed to: addressing a particular problem which was recognized but unsolved in the art, producing unexpected results at the level of the ordinary skill in the art, or any other objective indicators of non-obviousness.
instructing the first camera to capture the series of image frames.” (“all of the cameras 1 can be activated to record image data in response to a single signal sent from the base station 3” which includes the first camera. See Laurans, Paragraph 36. Also note “In some embodiments, the camera 1 can include [thus being most proximate to] a passive infrared sensor, ultrasonic sensor or other device that can detect movement and/or the presence of various objects and a signal from such a sensor can be used by the controller 11 to activate the imager module 15 to detect image data from an area of interest, such as a field of view of the imager module 15,” which activates the specific imager module that corresponds to the sensor. Laurans, Paragraph 38.)
Regarding Claim 5 “The system of claim 4, wherein the instructions further comprise
providing the series of images to the server, (“the camera 1 activates the first communications module 12 and sends the image data directly to the server” Laurans, Paragraph 39.)
wherein the server is configured to assess the series of images to determine a probability that a fire is occurring at the location under surveillance.” (Note that the system of Claim 4 is not limited to comprise a server. For this reason, this element is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 4. Cumulatively, prior art teaches: “a camera arranged to capture video image data and to send the video image data to a remote server, which can perform a security monitoring function to identify alarm states, notify authorities of an alarm condition at a monitored location … and analyzing conditions, such as … fire and/or smoke conditions.” Laurans, Paragraph 27, 34. Similarly, Laurans2 evaluates the conditions for “detection of fire in the building” in Column 10, line 20. See statement of motivation in Claim 4.)
Regarding Claim 6: “The system of claim 5, further comprising
a speaker in communication with the security gateway, and (“The controller 11 can also include various user interface components 17 such as status LEDs or other indicators, buttons, switches or other user input devices, a speaker or microphone to output or receive input regarding audible sound, and so on.” Laurans, Paragraph 43.)
wherein the security gateway issues a notification in response to receiving an indication from the server that the fire is occurring at the location under surveillance, and (“the base station 3, for example, to report conditions detected by the sensors 2 to the server 5, as well as other information such as an alarm condition determined at the location 101 by the base station 3.” Laurans, Paragraph 37. Note that the alarm condition can be “fire and/or smoke conditions,” Laurans, Paragraphs 34, 52.)
wherein the notification comprises one or more of an audio emission, a light emission, a telephone call, or a message transmitted by way of the network.” (“displaying an alarm ( e.g., emitting siren noises and emergency lighting at the building, etc.),” Laurans, Paragraph 34.)
Regarding Claim 9: “The system of claim 7, wherein the instructions further comprise
providing the series of image frames to the server, (“the camera 1 activates the first communications module 12 and sends the image data directly to the server” Laurans, Paragraph 39.)
wherein the server is configured to assess the series of image frames to determine a probability that an intruder has entered the location under surveillance.” (Note that the system of Claim 4 is not limited to comprise a server. For this reason, this element is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 4. Cumulatively, prior art teaches: “a camera arranged to capture video image data and to send the video image data to a remote server, which can perform a security monitoring function to identify alarm states, notify authorities of an alarm condition at a monitored location … conditions, such as movement of people … the presence of people, sounds, door/window opening, etc.,” indicating a probability that the movement of people or egress conditions identify an alarm state and thus an intrusion. Laurans, Paragraphs 27, 33-34. As noted for Claim 7, egress is one of the monitored alarm states.)
Claim 10 is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 6n view of the Claim 9 rejection.
Regarding Claim 14: “The system of claim 11, further comprising a chime that comprises a speaker, wherein the security device further comprises a doorbell actuator, and wherein activation of the doorbell actuator causes the security device to provide a signal to the speaker of the chime.” (“The controller 11 can also include various user interface components 17 such as status LEDs or other indicators, buttons, switches or other user input devices, a speaker or microphone to output or receive input regarding audible sound, and so on.” Laurans, Paragraph 43. “e.g., a camera, speaker and microphone that is part of a doorbell at the building 3” Laurens2, Column 6, lines 4-7. See statement of motivation in Claim 4.)
Regarding Claim 15: “The system of claim 14, wherein the chime further comprises a Wi-Fi® signal repeater that rebroadcasts a signal for the wireless local area network.” (“The first network connection can include a wifi network connection between the camera and the gateway [wifi signal repeater], and so can include a wireless local area network connection between the camera and the gateway.” Laurans, Paragraph 47.)
Regarding Claim 16: “The system of claim 14, wherein the chime further comprises a battery charger for a battery, and wherein the battery is associated with the security device.” (“This can help the camera conserve battery power, and so increase battery life or time between required charging,” indicating the required use of a battery charger. Laurans, Paragraph 52.)
Claim 19, “A system” is rejected for reasons stated for Claims 1, 2, 4, and 5, and because prior art teaches: “wherein the plurality of cameras are installed at the location under surveillance;” (“if the location 101 has multiple cameras 1, all of the cameras 1 can be activated to record image data … if one or more conditions at the location 101 are detected (e.g., movement around a house), the base station 3 can activate one or more cameras 1 to record and send video image data” Laurans, Paragraphs 36, 40, 44. Thus there can be multiple cameras at the location and one of them can be activated in response to the sensor signal and based on sensor proximity to the camera field of view.)
Claim 20 is rejected for reasons stated for Claims 19 and 7.
Regarding Claim 21: “The system of claim 1, wherein determining the sensor data meets a threshold of an alarm event further comprises;
initially determining the sensor data indicates an unsure level of meeting the threshold of the alarm event; (Note that Specification does not support the terms “initially” or “unsure level.” See section 112 above. Cumulatively, prior art teaches: “Monitoring of the location 101 can involve any variety of different functions, such as detecting and analyzing conditions, such as use of doors to enter/exit a building, opening/closing of windows, noise at the location, fire and/or smoke conditions, movement of people or objects, abnormally high/low temperatures and/or water, etc. … In some embodiments, … can monitor for the presence of people, sounds, door/window opening, etc., as well as perform functions of identifying whether an alarm condition is present,” which indicates that data from any one sensor may not be “sure” enough to trigger an alarm, but data from multiple sensors can be analyzed “sure” enough to trigger an alarm. See Laurans, Paragraph 34. See treatment of thresholds in Claim 1.)
causing other sensors to collect other sensor data; and (“Monitoring of the location 101 can involve any variety of different functions, such as detecting and analyzing conditions, such as use of doors to enter/exit a building, opening/closing of windows, noise at the location, fire and/or smoke conditions, movement of people or objects, abnormally high/low temperatures and/or water, etc. … In this embodiment, components that are at the location 101 include a camera 1, one or more other sensors 2, “ Laurans, Paragraphs 34-35. See treatment of thresholds in Claim 1.)
determining that the sensor data combined with the other sensor data meets the threshold of the alarm event.” (“Monitoring of the location 101 can involve any variety of different functions, such as detecting and analyzing conditions, such as use of doors to enter/exit a building, opening/closing of windows, noise at the location, fire and/or smoke conditions, movement of people or objects, abnormally high/low temperatures and/or water, etc. … In some embodiments, … can monitor for the presence of people, sounds, door/window opening, etc., as well as perform functions of identifying whether an alarm condition is present,” where identifying an alarm condition indicates that an alarm threshold has been met. Laurans, Paragraph 34. See treatment of thresholds in Claim 1.)
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210360446 to Laurans (“Laurans”) in view of US 10657795 Laurans (“Laurans2”) and further in view of US 10026283 to Liu (“Liu”).
Regarding Claim 18: “The system of claim 9, wherein the probability that an intruder has entered the location under surveillance further comprises calculating [a confidence score] that an identity of the intruder is that of a known person authorized to enter the location under surveillance.” (“does not generate an alarm condition upon detection of movement within the building or other normal conditions when an authorized person is in the building” Laurans, 2, Column 8, lines 22-24.)
Laruans and Laurans 2 indicate the use of a system that detects authorized persons from unauthorized person but do not discuss how such a system is implemented, or include “calculating a confidence score” in the context of distinguishing the identity of an intruder rom that of an authorized person.
Liu teaches the above claim feature in the context of detecting an intruder in a monitored area: “As the encountered human undergoes a recognition mechanism challenge, the system determines a confidence level for the mechanism specific response and compares it to an associated threshold value. If 55 the determined confidence level exceeds the threshold value, the intrusion detection system labels the encountered human as authorized.” Liu, Column 2, lines 51-57.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to supplement the teachings of Laruans and Laurans 2 to calculate a confidence score that an identity of the intruder is that of a known person authorized to enter the location under surveillance as taught in Liu, in order to “reduce the occurrence of false alarms.” Laurans 2, Column 8, lines 24-26.
Finally, in reviewing the present application, there does not seem to be objective evidence that the claim limitations are particularly directed to: addressing a particular problem which was recognized but unsolved in the art, producing unexpected results at the level of the ordinary skill in the art, or any other objective indicators of non-obviousness.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIKHAIL ITSKOVICH whose telephone number is (571)270-7940. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thu. 9am - 8pm.
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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at (571)272-7383. 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.
/MIKHAIL ITSKOVICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483