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.
Claim Status
This action is in response to application filed on December 21, 2023. Claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-5, 7-13 and 15-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 and 5-11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,409,807 (reference application) respectively. Claims 1-5, 7-13 and 15-19 are generally broader than the respective claims 1-3 and 5-11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,409,807. Broader claims in a later application constitute obvious double patenting of narrow claims in an issued patent. See In re Van Ornum and Stang, 214, USPQ 761, 766, and 767 (CCPA) (the court sustained an obvious double patenting rejection of generic claims in a continuation application over narrower species claims in an issued patent); In re Vogel, 164 USPQ 619, 622, and 623 (CCPA 1970) (generic application claim specifying "meat" is obvious double patenting of narrow patent claim specifying "pork").
Reference application claims 1, 2 corresponds to instant claim 1,
reference application claim 3 corresponds to instant claim 2,
reference application claim 1 corresponds to instant claim 3,
reference application claim 1 corresponds to instant claim 4,
reference application claim 1 corresponds to instant claim 5,
reference application claim 1 corresponds to instant claim 7,
reference application claim 5 corresponds to instant claim 8,
reference application claims 6, 9, 11 corresponds to instant claim 9,
reference application claim 8 corresponds to instant claim 10,
reference application claim 6, 7 corresponds to instant claim 11,
reference application claim 6 corresponds to instant claim 12,
reference application claim 10 corresponds to instant claim 13,
reference application claim 1 corresponds to instant claim 15,
reference application claims 6, 9 corresponds to instant claim 16,
reference application claim 11 corresponds to instant claim 17,
reference application claim 8 corresponds to instant claim 18, and
reference application claim 9 corresponds to instant claim 19.
Claims 6, 14 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2, 11 and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,409,807 in view of Jo et al. (Jo: US 2014/0303905).
Claims 2, 11 and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,409,807 does not explicitly disclose the claim subject matter of claims 6, 14 and 20. However, Jo teaches wherein: the property comprises a vehicle and the body of the property comprises a body of the vehicle; the audio sensor is located within an interior space of the vehicle (Par 27: a sensor that is mounted in an interior of the vehicle to measure interior noise of the vehicle, and includes a microphone or the like ); the accelerometer is mounted to a surface of the body of the vehicle; and the surface of the body of the vehicle interfaces with the interior space of the vehicle (Par [0029] The vibration measuring unit 30 is a sensor that is mounted on both rails of a driver seat of the vehicle to body vibration of the running vehicle, and includes an accelerometer. ) .
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 Jo in order to safely and easily measure the road noise profile on the real road on which the vehicle is running (Jo: Par 26).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowed if they overcome the double patenting rejections set forth above.
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance:
Safir et al. (Safir: US 20200247365) teaches a method for protecting property, the method comprising: providing audio data from a potential tamper event to a machine learning model trained using audio signatures of known tamper events (Fig. 5a, steps 502-504 and Par 75 and Par 77, At step 504, the controller 112 compares the information with known signatures indicative of a likely attack, and determines at step 506 whether a known signature indicative of a likely attack is present. And Par 73, audio sensors and Par 71, known signatures are trained by machine learning); responsive to the machine learning model classifying the potential tamper event as a tamper event, placing an alert system in a heightened state of alert based on the tamper event classification including activating accelerometer (Par [0078] The placing of the at least one system into a heightened state of alert at step 508 may include: activating at least one further sensor, such as a camera, accelerometer,) but fails to teach “responsive to the machine learning model classifying the potential tamper event as a tamper event, comparing acceleration-related data from a body of the property during the potential tamper event to a threshold; and responsive to determining the acceleration-related data exceeds the threshold, placing an alert system in a heightened state of alert based on the tamper event classification”.
Regarding claims 1, 9 and 16, the prior art of record does not sufficiently teach or suggest the claimed limitations in their entirety such as “responsive to the machine learning model classifying the potential tamper event as a tamper event, comparing acceleration-related data from a body of the property during the potential tamper event to a threshold; and responsive to determining the acceleration-related data exceeds the threshold, placing an alert system in a heightened state of alert based on the tamper event classification”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Prior arts cited for the record but not used in Office Action, are listed in attached PTO-892.
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, Curtis Kuntz can be reached on (571) 272-7499. 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 2687
Prosecution Insights