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 .
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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 15, 2026 has been entered. Claims 4, 11 and 18 have been cancelled, claims 21-23 have been newly added and claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 12, 15, 17 and 19 have been amended. Therefore, claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17 and 19-23 are currently pending for examination.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
Examiner interprets Claims 1, 8 and 15 recites limitation “one or more of: modifying a set of conditions … ; and adding or modifying a communication channel …” as “one or more of modifying a set of conditions … and one or more of adding or modifying a communication channel …”. The plain English meaning of the phrase “at least one of X and Y;” is “at least one of X and at least one of Y”.
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 of this title, 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 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, 19-20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen et al. (Jensen: US 10163329B1) in view of Hederstierna (WO2020039040) further in view of Cho et al. (Cho: US 20240045565 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Jensen teaches a system for providing a multi-alert-level monitoring and alerting service for a premises (Fig. 1 and Col. 8 lines 24-25; property monitored by control panel 135 and sensor units 110 and Fig. 5, 500 and Col) comprising a set of devices, comprising:
one or more memories (510and Col. 2 lines 14-20); and
at least one processor each coupled to at least one of the memories and configured to perform operations (505, 215-b) comprising:
detecting that a first event has occurred based at least on first sensor data collected from a first subset of the set of devices; in response to at least the detecting that the first event has occurred, modifying an alert level associated with the premises from a first alert level to a second alert level (Col. 13 lines 48-67; a single security event may result in a first threat level; however, a subsequent or additional security event may increase or decrease the threat level. For example, a first security event may be a motion sensor activating which results in a low threat level; Col. 14 lines 1-12: no threat level); and
in response to the modification of the alert level associated with the premises from the first alert level to the second alert level, performing one or more of:
modifying a set of conditions to be detected whether a second event has occurred based at least on second sensor data collected from a second subset of the set of IoT devices (Col. 13 lines 30-47; When a low threat level is determine, the system may initiate an alarm state which corresponds to information and notification, but not to evasive or emergency actions; for example, compiling an event summary and report indicating when, where, and what the event was, recording video and audio clips for current or later viewing, determining the location and/or status of occupants, increasing monitoring, increasing the sensitivity of sensors, turn on lights, feign additional occupancy, send notifications to occupants, etc. and Col. 13 lines 48-67; a single security event may result in a first threat level; however, a subsequent or additional security event may increase or decrease the threat level. For example, a first security event may be a motion sensor activating which results in a low threat level; however, shortly after the motion sensor activates, the system detects the opening of a window. Thus, the second security event (i.e., opening the window), combined with the first security event (i.e., detecting motion), may escalate the threat level to medium. Shortly after detecting the opening of the window, an indoor biometric sensor may determine the presence of an unauthorized person. The addition of the third security event, combined with the first two, may escalate the threat level to high. Although the three events combined may result in a high threat level, any other combination of the events, or each of the events individually, may not result in a high threat level. Thus, the system may determine which events, during which time, for which duration, in which order, and in which combination result in which threat level and which subsequent actions are taken.).
Jensen does not explicitly disclose adding or modifying a communication channel over which the second sensor data is collected.
Jensen further teaches the trigger events such as opening the window, motion sensor would modify the security alert level (Col. 13 Lines 50-57).
However, Hederstierna teaches a security monitoring system (abstract) having a central unit (Fig. 1, 110 and Fig. 2) being configured to communicate over first and second communication channels with a sensor node having image sensor (310) and motion sensor (320) (Fig. 3) and further teaches modifying a communication channel over which the second sensor data is collected (Page 15, second paragraph; When a motion detector, for example a PIR (pyroelectric infrared) sensor, detects motion it transmits a signal to the central unit 110 using the node transceiver in a regular speed mode. …. The central unit 110 will then send a message to the video camera using the first transceiver at regular speed, the message requesting the video camera to transmit video data to the central unit 110 at high speed (e.g. higher bitrate). Such a request may be for the video camera to stream video data. More generally, the central unit may send a message to an image source, such as a camera, requesting it to transmit image data at high speed. And Page 15, third paragraph, trigger events).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Hederstierna in order to enable data to be sent from the camera node to the gateway at high speed (Hederstierna: Page 15, third paragraph).
Jensen or Hederstierna does not explicitly disclose the devices are IoT devices.
However, the preceding limitation is known in the art of home monitoring devices. Cho teaches detecting an event has occurred based on sensor data from IoT devices (Par 3-4 and Par 64).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Cho in order to detect abnormal situation/event (Cho: Par 64).
Claims 1 and 15 are also rejected for the same reasons for claim 8 above.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Jensen, Hederstierna and Cho teaches the system of claim 8, wherein modifying the set of conditions to be detected to determine whether the second event has occurred comprises one or more of: adding or removing a condition from the set of conditions; or modifying a threshold associated with a condition in the set of conditions (Jensen: Col. 13 lines 30-47; When a low threat level is determine, the system may initiate an alarm state which corresponds to information and notification, but not to evasive or emergency actions; for example, compiling an event summary and report indicating when, where, and what the event was, recording video and audio clips for current or later viewing, determining the location and/or status of occupants, increasing monitoring, increasing the sensitivity of sensors, turn on lights, feign additional occupancy, send notifications to occupants, etc.).
Claims 2 and 16 are also rejected for the same reasons for claim 9 above.
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Jensen, Hederstierna and Cho teaches the system of claim 8, wherein the operations further comprise performing at least one of:
modifying a manner of operation of at least one sensor that is used to generate the second sensor data (Col. 13 lines 30-47;increasing monitoring, increasing the sensitivity of sensors);
modifying a physical environment in which at least one sensor that is used to generate the second sensor data operates; or
modifying a set of sensors that are used to generate the second sensor data.
Claims 3 and 17 are also rejected for the same reasons for claim 10 above.
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Jensen, Hederstierna and Cho teaches the system of claim 8, wherein the operations further comprise at least one of:
recording the second sensor data to a new storage location (Hederstierna: page 12 first paragraph, The controller 250 is also coupled to a memory 270 which may store data received from the various nodes of the installation - for example event data, sounds, images and video data. i.e. memory is a new location to store the sensor data that just received); or
changing a duration for which the second sensor data is stored.
Claims 5 and 19 are also rejected for the same reasons for claim 12 above.
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Jensen, Hederstierna and Cho teaches the system of claim 8, wherein the operations further comprise:
in further response to the modification of the alert level associated with the premises from the first alert level to the second alert level, activating monitoring for a third event based at least on third sensor data collected from a third subset of the set of IoT devices (Jensen: Col. 13 lines 48-67; a single security event may result in a first threat level; however, a subsequent or additional security event may increase or decrease the threat level. For example, a first security event may be a motion sensor activating which results in a low threat level; however, shortly after the motion sensor activates, the system detects the opening of a window. Thus, the second security event (i.e., opening the window), combined with the first security event (i.e., detecting motion), may escalate the threat level to medium. Shortly after detecting the opening of the window, an indoor biometric sensor may determine the presence of an unauthorized person. The addition of the third security event, combined with the first two, may escalate the threat level to high. Although the three events combined may result in a high threat level, any other combination of the events, or each of the events individually, may not result in a high threat level. Thus, the system may determine which events, during which time, for which duration, in which order, and in which combination result in which threat level and which subsequent actions are taken.).
Claims 6 and 20 are also rejected for the same reasons for claim 13 above.
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Jensen, Hederstierna and Cho teaches the system of claim 8, wherein the operations further comprise:
in further response to the modification of the alert level associated with the premises from the first alert level to the second alert level, modifying a manner in which an alert will be generated when a third event is detected based at least on third sensor data collected from a third subset of the set of IoT devices (Jensen: Col. 13 lines 48-67; …the second security event (i.e., opening the window), combined with the first security event (i.e., detecting motion), may escalate the threat level to medium. Shortly after detecting the opening of the window, an indoor biometric sensor may determine the presence of an unauthorized person. The addition of the third security event, combined with the first two, may escalate the threat level to high. And Col.14 lines 13-25; A medium threat level may result in turning lighting on or off, locking doors, alarming a different security system, issuing a quieter audible alarm (e.g., a soft beep), providing options for a user on an interactive panel to provide more information or confirm a situation, etc. A high threat level, however, may result in a full alarm (e.g., flood lights, sirens, audible warnings) as well as communication with other occupants, neighbors, security providers, and/or emergency services. ).
Claim 7 is also rejected for the same reasons for claim 14 above.
Regarding Claim 22, the combination of Jensen, Hederstierna and Cho teaches the system of claim 8, wherein adding or modifying the communication channel comprises preventing a particular type of traffic from being received and transmitted via the communication channel (Hederstierna: Page 18, first paragraph, there may be more than one node transmitting a trigger at substantially the same time, which may happen if e.g. two nodes are at different ends of a premises with a centrally placed Central Unit 110. In this case the central unit 110 may consider capabilities of each node and prioritize one of them depending on e.g. node capabilities, expected amount of data and wireless parameters relating to that node. The other node may either transmit data using regular speed or may optionally receive a message instructing it to wait for configurable time before requesting the high speed channel again. i.e. preventing the other node sensor data temporarily).
Claims 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen in view of Hederstierna and Cho further in view of Blue (US 20180109543 A1).
Regarding Claim 21, the combination of Jensen, Hederstierna and Cho teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein adding or modifying the communication channel comprises switching from a low-bandwidth communication channel to a high-bandwidth communication channel.
Hederstierna teaches the video camera to transmit video data to the central unit 110 at high speed (e.g. higher bitrate) (Page 15, second paragraph).
However, Blue teaches modifying the communication channel comprises switching from a low-bandwidth communication channel to a high-bandwidth communication channel (Fig. 3B and Par [0067] If the rate of data transmission is not greater than the predefined threshold, the data may be sent 355 via the first, low bandwidth, channel. However, if the rate of data transmission is greater than the predefined threshold, the data may be sent 354 via the second, high bandwidth, channel.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Blue in order to transmit substantial data from the sensor (Blue: Par 30).
Regarding Claim 23, the combination of Jensen, Hederstierna and Cho teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, but does not explicitly teach wherein adding or modifying the communication channel comprises switching from a low-bandwidth communication channel to a high-bandwidth communication channel.
Hederstierna teaches the video camera to transmit video data to the central unit 110 at high speed (e.g. higher bitrate) (Page 15, second paragraph).
However, Blue teaches modifying the communication channel comprises switching from a low-bandwidth communication channel to a high-bandwidth communication channel (Fig. 3B and Par [0067] If the rate of data transmission is not greater than the predefined threshold, the data may be sent 355 via the first, low bandwidth, channel. However, if the rate of data transmission is greater than the predefined threshold, the data may be sent 354 via the second, high bandwidth, channel.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Blue in order to transmit substantial data from the sensor (Blue: Par 30).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on January 15, 2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of new grounds of rejections.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nay Tun whose telephone number is (571)270-7939. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs from 9:00-5:00. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's Supervisor, Steven Lim can be reached on (571) 270-1210. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Nay Tun/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688