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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/09/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 07/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues: “Examiner Itskovich suggested amending the claims to recite that generating the verbal message uses "data from the first sensor data that indicates at least one attribute and at least one activity of the person," which Applicant has done in this paper.”
Examiner notes that the present claims do not recite that generating the verbal message uses “data from the first sensor data that indicates at least one attribute and at least one activity of the person.” The present claims use the data to determine a deterrent strategy such as an alarm or a pre-recorded message. There is no limitation to synthesizing the voice message based on the specific sensor data.
Regarding the newly amended language of Claim 1, Applicant argues: “First, King does not suggest or disclose that determining how to output the local audio uses the one or more attributes and the one or more activities of the person, as claimed.”
Examiner notes that the claims do not specify determining how to output the local audio uses the one or more attributes and the one or more activities of the person. The amended Claim 1 recites “a verbal message that is a) personalized for the person given the at least one attribute of the person and the at least one activity.” This limitation is addressed in the updated reasons for rejection below.
Applicant argues: “Second, this disclosure indicates that the types of alarms differ in that a Type 2 Alarm results in a notification to a store team member or causes a video system to zero in on the area of interest. As a result, King does not suggest or disclose that there is a difference in how a Type 1 or 2 alarm outputs local audio "for a conversation with the person."”
As a threshold matter, Examiner notes that the present claims do not perform “a conversation” the present claims “generate a verbal message,” which is addressed below Applicant’s intention to use the claims for a different type of conversation do not limit the claims to performing particular steps.
Applicant argues: “As amended, claim 1 also recites: generating, using second data from the first sensor data that indicates at least one attribute and at least one activity of the person and the deterrence strategy for the conversation with the person, a verbal message that is a) personalized for the person given the at least one attribute of the person and the at least one activity and b) has at least the likelihood threshold of causing the person to leave the area within the threshold distance of the physical property. The Office alleges that King discloses the claimed features prior to amendment …”
Examiner notes that Applicant’s argument that newly amended claim language was improperly addressed in the previous office action is not persuasive, because Applicant did not submit this claim language for review in the previous office action. Newly amended language is addressed by the rejection reasons provided below.
Applicant argues: “Although King discloses an "[a]udible voice response with custom messages ... [such as] a mild or aggressive message" (see paragraphs 259-260), King does not suggest or disclose that these messages are customized to be mild or aggressive "given the at least one attribute of the person and the at least one activity." Rather, King discloses: "The device can activate mild deterrents when the threat level is mild, and can deploy more aggressive responses as the sensed threat level increases. It can also deliver multiple messages of varying aggressiveness while a shopper continues to dwell in areas of interest." Paragraph 256. But King's threat level does not suggest or disclose customizing the message using both a threat level of the person and at least one activity of the person.”
Examiner notes that other paragraphs in King teach assessing a threat level of a person based on activities and attributes of this person. Clearly the audible voice response can be selected based on an analysis of sensor data about a person. See reasons for rejection below.
Applicant argues: “As amended, claim 1 also recites: "accessing first sensor data i) at least some of which indicates one or more attributes and one or more activities of a person at a physical property, and ii) was captured by one or more sensors included in the monitoring system." The Office alleges that King discloses the claimed features prior to amendment.…”
Examiner notes that Applicant’s argument that newly amended claim language was improperly addressed in the previous office action is not persuasive, because Applicant did not submit this claim language for review in the previous office action. Newly amended language is addressed by the rejection reasons provided below.
Regarding the newly amended language, Applicant argues: “The cited portions of King do not suggest or disclose "accessing first sensor data i) at least some of which indicates one or more attributes and one or more activities of a person at a physical property, and ii) was captured by one or more sensors included in the monitoring system." Specifically, whether a person is engaged in theft does not disclose or suggest both "one or more attributes and one or more activities of a person" as recited by claim 1.”
Examiner notes that Claim 1 does not limit “one or more attributes and one or more activities of a person,” or their relation to each other. Prior art provides examples of such data which are similar to the examples in the Specification. See updated reasons for rejection below.
Applicant argues: “Finally, King does not disclose generating "a verbal message that ... has at least the likelihood threshold of causing the person to leave the area within the threshold distance of the physical property," as claimed. The Action states: "Where necessary, King does not explicitly discuss use of thresholds when making computer determinations in the above examples, however it is well established that use of thresholds is the fundamental way by which a computer makes decisions based on data." Action at p. 12. The Office has not provided any evidence that "use of thresholds of making computer determinations ... is the fundamental way by which a computer makes decisions based on data,"”
Examiner disagrees. The rejection cites King, Paragraphs 94, 127, 151 and Subrami, Paragraphs 7, 28, 35. Applicant naming its decision threshold a “likelihood threshold of causing the person to leave the area,” does not limit it to a particular method of threshold determination or change its nature as a decision threshold, such as in decisions made by the prior art in selecting a particular security response over other responses.
Response to Amendment
Examiner withdraws the rejection of Claims 1-21 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, in view of the amendments.
Claim Construction
Note that, for purposes of compact prosecution, multiple reasons for rejection may be provided for a claim or a part of the claim. The rejection reasons are cumulative, and Applicant should review all the stated reasons as guides to improving the claim language and advancing the prosecution toward an allowance.
Claims 12-14 recite “a plurality of presentation devices” a generic term (device) modified by functional language but not modified by structure or a structural term and not naming a structure readily recognized by persons of skill in the art to perform the claimed function. The limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph, and shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification and equivalents thereof. Specification indicates “presentation devices 114a-c, e.g., speakers, internal lights 1 22a-b, and external lights 120. … presentation devices 114 may include personal computers, mobile communication devices, and other devices … presentation devices 114 can include one or more data processors and instructions that cause the one or more data processors to perform the operations discussed herein … ” Specification, Paragraphs 61-62. Thus, the broadest reasonable interpretation covers a broad range of output devices including general purpose computers. Also note that the claims do not comprise the structure of the presentation device, rather the claims are configured to provide commands to a presentation device such as a speaker or a computer.
"[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113(I).
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.
Broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958); M.P.E.P 2144.04(III); FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016). A claimed improvement by use of a computer requires a nexus to a particularly claimed algorithm and may not come “solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer.” FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Claims 1-2, 4-17, 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190088096 to King (“King “) in view of US 20220157139 to Subrami (“Subrami”).
Regarding Claim 1 “A computer-implemented method comprising:
by a monitoring system that includes at least a processor and memory: (“The microprocessor [embodying a processor and memory] uses assigned, pre-programed ( or learned) algorithms” King, Paragraph 81 and similarly in Subrami, Paragraph 43.)
accessing first sensor data … ii) was captured by one or more sensors included in the monitoring system; (Prior art teaches: “the present invention pertains to sensors and systems using same … for identifying persons of interest in a retail store environment by identifying persons deemed relatively likely to engage in such theft,” as example attributes. See King, Paragraphs 2-4. Computer sensors commonly include “a microphone to capture sound data that is combined with image data to form video image data, etc. as is known in the art” Subrami, Paragraph 22. See statement of motivation below.)
[accessing first sensor data] i) at least some of which indicates one or more attributes and one or more activities of a person at a physical property, (First note that the sensor data is claimed as a product generated by a process that produces some data with one or more attributes and one or more activities of a person at a physical property, however the claimed step of accessing does not limit the claim to performing such a process or to steps of guaranteeing that a person is at a physical property or steps of ensuring that some of the accessed data will contain the desired attributes. Cumulatively, prior art teaches “the present invention pertains to sensors and systems using [accessing] same … for identifying persons of interest in a retail store environment by identifying persons deemed relatively likely to engage in such theft [attributes] based on repetitive proximity to events of interest [attributes/activities] and/or actual prior behaviors in order [activities]. See King, Paragraphs 2-4. This is consistent with examples of attributes and activities in Specification, Paragraphs 38-39, 66, 126.)
determining, from two or more deterrence strategies, a deterrence strategy for conversation with the person and with at least a likelihood threshold of causing the person to leave an area within a threshold distance of the physical property using, as input to an analysis engine, first data from the first sensor data that indicates the one or more attributes and the one or more activities of the person; (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and ordinary skill in the art, this deterrence strategy can involve acting threatening to an intruder, such as by playing an audio recording or impersonating a conversation. See Specification Paragraphs 5, 54-55.
First note that this claim element is not limited to any specific means for automation of this typically manual activity of determining based on video and/or audio the best way to deter a person.
Cumulatively, prior art provides an example where: ““Upon detecting such activity [see sensor detection of theft activity by a person having attributes of a thief above], … the device (herein "SmartDome") actively makes its presence known, inherently making SmartDome more threatening to a thief, since it is "aware" of suspicious behaviors, and because SmartDome brings this activity to the attention of store personnel via automated notification. … In most cases, a Type 1 Alarm causes the device to output a local audio sound and/or to flash an integral light - these actions raise the awareness of any nearby person(s) and are known to deter theft activity … Rapid movement of multiple items that is almost certainly indicating an in-process sweep triggers a voice message from SmartDome, such as "Recording and response are now in process" …” where the system can implement one of these deterrents from multiple possible detterrents. King, Paragraphs 4, 29, 276.)
generating, using second data from the first sensor data that indicates at least one attribute and at least one activity of the person and the deterrence strategy for the conversation with the person a verbal message that is a) personalized for the person given the at least one attribute of the person and the at least one activity and (“SmartDome outputs a tone, sound effect, and/or voice message to draw the thiefs [attribute of a person] attention and one or more lights begin flashing … 3) Audible voice response with custom messages … a. This voice response can deliver a mild or aggressive message.” King, Paragraphs 207, 259-260. For example, “Rapid movement of multiple items [first sensor data] that is almost certainly indicating an in-process sweep [second sensor data indicating a thief] triggers a voice message from SmartDome, such as "Recording and response are now in process" …” King, Paragraph 276. See determination of likelihoods above.)
b) has at least the likelihood threshold of causing the person to leave the area within the threshold distance of the physical property; (“these actions raise the awareness of any nearby person(s) and are known to deter [i.e. within a deterrence threshold] theft activity” King, Paragraph 29. “Clearly, this communicates an immediate and escalated alert level which will cause most any thief to immediately leave.” King, Paragraph 276. See an additional treatment of thresholds below.)
providing, to a speaker, (“"Notification" as used in the present invention is a message to staff via any communication device or channel including but not limited to overhead PA speakers” King, Paragraph 68.)
a command to cause the speaker to present the verbal message that is a) personalized for the person and (“SmartDome outputs a tone, sound effect, and/or voice message to draw the thiefs [attribute of a person] attention and one or more lights begin flashing … 3) Audible voice response with custom messages … a. This voice response can deliver a mild or aggressive message.” King, Paragraphs 207, 259-260. For example, “Rapid movement of multiple items [first sensor data] that is almost certainly indicating an in-process sweep [second sensor data indicating a thief] triggers a voice message from SmartDome, such as "Recording and response are now in process" …” King, Paragraph 276. See determination of likelihoods above.)
b) has at least the likelihood threshold of causing the person to leave the area within the threshold distance of the physical property;” (“these actions raise the awareness of any nearby person(s) and are known to deter [i.e. within a deterrence threshold] theft activity” King, Paragraph 29. “Clearly, this communicates an immediate and escalated alert level which will cause most any thief to immediately leave.” King, Paragraph 276. See an additional treatment of thresholds below.)
after the speaker presents at least a portion of the verbal message, receiving second sensor data at least some of which identifies one or more second attributes or activities of the person at the physical property, (“taking particular actions in response to sensed conditions, such as notifying authorities ( e.g., police, fire, building management, etc.) of particular conditions, notifying a user of particular conditions, displaying an alarm (e.g., emitting siren noises and emergency lighting at the building, etc.), recording video and/or audio” and thus notification and audio recording can be performed in response to the same sensory conditions. Subrami, Paragraphs 17, 22. See statement of motivation below.)
performing one or more actions using the deterrence strategy and the second sensor data.” (Note that the claim is not specific as to what actions are to be performed or how the data is to be used. Prior art provides examples: “A Type 2 Alarm typically additionally results in a notification to one or more members of a store team and/or may cause a video system to automatically zero in on the area of interest for manual or automatic analysis of the event.” King, Paragraph 29. In more detail the security system can be “taking particular actions in response to sensed conditions, such as notifying authorities ( e.g., police, fire, building management, etc.) of particular conditions, notifying a user of particular conditions, displaying an alarm (e.g., emitting siren noises and emergency lighting at the building, etc.), recording video and/or audio … at least some video image data to be transmitted to the monitoring server(s) 200. For example, there can be an alarm condition at the property 100, such as a detected broken window or forced door opening during a failure of a network connection, and transmission of at least one image frame ( or still image) from video image data captured by the imaging device 123 can be useful to determine whether a person is involved with the alarm even” and thus in response to the sensory and to the deterrence action, additional sensory can be recorded and transmitted . Subrami, Paragraphs 17, 22, 26. See statement of motivation below.)
Where necessary, King does not explicitly discuss use of thresholds when making computer determinations in the above examples, however it is well established that use of thresholds is the fundamental way by which a computer makes decisions based on data: “events that minimally define a Level 1 and a Level 2 Alarm. Risk scores can be used for other purposes, such as whether police and/or other authorities are notified automatically by a computer system, e.g., an event with a risk score over a threshold can cause notification of police before human screening,” See King, Paragraphs 94, 127, 151.
Subrami also indicates that the computer makes decisions based on scoring and thresholding the data: “Risk scores can be used for other purposes, such as whether police and/or other authorities are notified automatically by a computer system, e.g., an event with a risk score over a threshold can cause notification of police before human screening,” Subrami, Paragraphs 7, 28, 35.
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 King to make computer decisions based on data by using thresholds, as taught in Subrami and other parts of King, in order for a computer to determine if the data represents a particular event. See King, Paragraphs 94, 127, 151 and Subrami, Paragraph 7.
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 2: “The method of claim 1 , wherein determining the deterrence strategy uses, as input to the analysis engine, data from the sensor data that indicates an appearance of the person.” (For example, “the present invention pertains to sensors and systems using same … for identifying persons of interest in a retail store environment by identifying persons deemed relatively likely to engage in such theft.” The sensors can be “video systems with real-time analytics can detect suspicious merchandise interactions” thus capturing and identifying an appearance of a person likely to engage in theft. See King, Paragraphs 2-4, 15. This is consistent with examples in Specification, Paragraph 34.)
Regarding Claim 4: “The method of claim 1, wherein the data that indicates the activities of the person comprises at least one of information about movement of the person or objects with which the person interacts.” (“reduces audio annunciation activations to only those interactions in which someone actually moves any of the displayed merchandise. This is accomplished by the mounted MAS detecting merchandise movement exceeding the defined threshold level then sending a trigger” King, Paragraph 151.)
Regarding Claim 5: “The method of claim 1, wherein determining the deterrence strategy uses, as input to the analysis engine, data from the sensor data that indicates a location of the person at the physical property.” (“trigger Type 1 awareness notifications. By incorporating location awareness sensing within the MAS,” King, Paragraphs 16, 31, and similarly in Subrami, Paragraph 6. )
Regarding Claim 6: “The method of claim 1, wherein determining the deterrence strategy uses, as input to the analysis engine, data from the sensor data that indicates one or more objects the person is carrying.” (“MAS detects merchandise interaction above the trigger threshold followed by three members of a booster team exiting the store carrying bags of stolen merchandise” King, Paragraph 199.)
Regarding Claim 7: “The method of claim 1, wherein determining the deterrence strategy comprises: determining that the person is at least one of: not likely authorized to be at the physical property, or a person in need of assistance within a threshold distance of the physical property; and … using, as input to the analysis engine, the determination that the person is at least one of: not likely authorized to be at the physical property, or a person in need of assistance within a threshold distance of the physical property.” (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and ordinary skill in the art, this information is both produces by an analysis engine and used by an analysis engine to determine further action. See Specification, Paragraph 38. Prior art teaches several embodiments of this, for example this can determined when “A person remaining in a fitting room longer than a typical shopping visit (sometimes factoring in the quantity of garments known to be taken into the fitting room) can constitute a suspicious event.” King, Paragraph 162. It can also be performed by “Methods used to declare a door opening as unauthorized, and therefore an EOI, … doors intended for use only by authorized personnel,” indicating use by unauthorized personnel. King, Paragraphs 165, 297. See use of identified attributes to determine further action in Claim 1.)
Regarding Claim 8: “The method of claim 1, wherein determining the deterrence strategy comprises determining, using first data from the sensor data and a deterrence model, the deterrence strategy with at least the likelihood threshold of causing the person to leave the area within the threshold distance of the physical property.” (“the present invention is a system for identifying persons of interest in a retail store environment by identifying persons deemed relatively likely to engage in such theft based on repetitive proximity to events of interest and/or actual prior behaviors in order to promote proactive deterrence of merchandise theft,” thus indicating a deterrence model based on variables and past behaviors. King, Paragraphs 3-4, 16, 29.)
Regarding Claim 9: “The method of claim 1, wherein performing the one or more actions using the deterrence strategy and the second sensor data comprises:
determining whether the second sensor data aligns with the deterrence strategy; and (“By incorporating location awareness sensing within the MAS, awareness notifications can also include location information. For example, a MAS in range of location beacons placed at areas one would travel to exit the store could cause the MAS to trigger a Type 2 alarm that results in notifications to store personnel and video systems” exemplifying a second deterrence strategy when compared to a Type 1 notification.. King, Paragraph 31.)
in response to determining that the second sensor data does not align with the deterrence strategy, determining, using data from the second sensor data, a different deterrence strategy with at least the second likelihood threshold of causing the person to leave the area within the threshold distance of the physical property.” (“By incorporating location awareness sensing within the MAS, awareness notifications can also include location information. For example, a MAS in range of location beacons placed at areas one would travel to exit the store could cause the MAS to trigger a Type 2 alarm that results in notifications to store personnel and video systems” King, Paragraph 31. “for a Type 2 alarm, … Remote Annunciator may activate for a lengthier period of time or with escalated volume and content (such as a voice message)” King, Paragraph 83. “As noted previously, escalating actions ( e.g., more aggressive and/or louder sounds and lights) can be triggered for higher level alarm thresholds ( e.g., detection of a suspected sweep activity),” as an example of activity that requiring a different deterrent strategy. King, Paragraphs 235, 78.)
Regarding Claim 10: “The method of claim 9, wherein:
receiving the second sensor data comprises receiving an audio signal encoding speech by the person; and (As noted above, “taking particular actions in response to sensed conditions, such as notifying authorities ( e.g., police, fire, building management, etc.) of particular conditions, notifying a user of particular conditions, displaying an alarm (e.g., emitting siren noises and emergency lighting at the building, etc.), recording video and/or audio” and thus notification and audio recording can be performed in response to the same sensory conditions. Subrami, Paragraphs 17, 22. For example, “The user or monitoring server(s) 200 may use a speaker and microphone or other means of communication to directly communicate with the visitor 561 at the property … Depending on the information received from the outdoor camera 120, the monitoring server(s) 200 may choose to alert the appropriate emergency response 310” Subrami, Paragraph 39. See statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
determining whether the second sensor data aligns with the deterrence strategy comprises determining whether the speech by the person aligns with the deterrence strategy.” (For example, “In some cases, if the camera detects a human, the camera can analyze the video data of the human in an attempt to recognize the human, e.g., by facial or voice recognition, etc.,” Subrami, Paragraph 5. “monitoring server(s) 200 may use the speaker or microphone with the outdoor camera 120 to determine that the known human visitor did not disarm the alarm system during the first delay due to an urgent medical condition. The monitoring server(s) 200 may then alert the appropriate emergency response.” Subrami, Paragraph 38. See statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
Regarding Claim 11: “The method of claim 9, wherein determining the deterrence strategy comprises providing at least some of the sensor data or the second sensor data to a security system remote from the physical property.” (“Appropriate store team, loss prevention professionals, and/or remote video monitoring personnel may then be notified in real time of the presence of such POis (and their threat rating” King, Paragraph 35. Also note an embodiment: “The video related to the event can be viewed in real time by a remote person.” King, Paragraph 102.)
Regarding Claim 12: “The method of claim 1, wherein performing the one or more actions using the deterrence strategy and the second sensor data comprises: selecting, from a plurality of presentation devices and using a location of the person, the speaker to which to send the command.” (““Location Based Services (LBS)" as used in the present invention is a system comprising an array of sensors and beacons located in store shells for use in identifying a shopper's approximate location in the store. In conjunction with MAS, LBS can provide data on shopper interaction with specific merchandise and send relevant information to customers.” King, Paragraphs 74, 130. “Local Deterrent Alarm: Sound and/or light in proximity to the suspicious event gains the attention of nearby persons ( especially thieves, who are typically hyper alert); these local alarms may be in a variety of form factors including: Local Annunciator: Essentially a small enclosure with a speaker” King, Paragraphs 300-301.)
Regarding Claim 13: “The method of claim 12, wherein selecting the speaker comprises selecting the speaker from the plurality of presentation devices that is closest to the location of the person.” (““Location Based Services (LBS)" as used in the present invention is a system comprising an array of sensors and beacons located in store shells for use in identifying a shopper's approximate location in the store. In conjunction with MAS, LBS can provide data on shopper interaction with specific merchandise and send relevant information to customers.” King, Paragraphs 74, 130. Also note that ordinarily the closest MAS system will do the sensing and the interacting with the person under surveillance. See King, Paragraph 99. “Local Deterrent Alarm: Sound and/or light in proximity to the suspicious event gains the attention of nearby persons ( especially thieves, who are typically hyper alert); these local alarms may be in a variety of form factors including: Local Annunciator: Essentially a small enclosure with a speaker” King, Paragraphs 300-301.)
Regarding Claim 14: “The method of claim 12, wherein selecting the speaker comprises selecting the speaker from the plurality of presentation devices that satisfies a third likelihood threshold of simulating interaction with the person by an occupant of the physical property.” (See selecting the speaker that is closest to the suspicious even in King, Paragraphs 300-301. This can be automated by the ““Location Based Services (LBS)" as used in the present invention is a system comprising an array of sensors and beacons located in store shells for use in identifying a shopper's approximate location in the store. In conjunction with MAS, LBS can provide data on shopper interaction with specific merchandise and send relevant information to customers.” King, Paragraphs 74, 130. Also note that ordinarily the closest MAS system will satisfy the likelihood threshold for sensing and the interacting with the person under surveillance. See King, Paragraph 99. See treatment of thresholds in Claim 1.)
Regarding Claim 15: “The method of claim 9, wherein performing the one or more actions using the deterrence strategy and the second sensor data comprises: providing, to the speaker and for another person, the command to cause the speaker to present the verbal message that is a) specific to the other person and b) has at least the second likelihood threshold of causing the other person to leave the area within the threshold distance of the physical property.” (See reasons for rejection in Claim 1. This can be applied for multiple persons: “SmartDome outputs a tone, sound effect, and/or voice message to draw the thiefs [a person and at least one other person] attention and one or more lights begin flashing …” King, Paragraph 207. For example, “4) Play a specific tone or voice message over the public address system” King, Paragraph 261. See treatment of likelihoods and thresholds in Claim 1.)
Claim 16: “One or more non-transitory computer storage media encoded with instructions that, when executed by one or more computers, cause the one or more computers to: …” is rejected for reasons stated for Claims 1, 9, and 15, and because prior art teaches:
“a programmed general purpose computer and/or other data processing device along with suitable software or other operating instructions, one or more memories (including nontransient storage media that may store software and/or other operating instructions), and so on.” Subrami, Paragraph 43. See statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
“the verbal message being different than a verbal message that would have been generated using a different deterrence strategy from the two or more deterrence strategies” (“The invention has a number of ways to increase the aggressiveness of the deterrent response based on the sensor inputs … It can also deliver multiple messages of varying aggressiveness … tailoring the response to the threat … This escalation can be accomplished in one or more of the following ways: … 2) Audible tone, low or high volume 3) Audible voice response with custom messages a. This voice response can deliver a mild or aggressive message 4) Play a specific tone or voice message over the public address system” King, Paragraphs 256-261.)
Claims 17, 19-20 are rejected for reasons stated for Claims 2, 5, 6 respectively in view of the Claim 16 rejection.
Claim 21, “A system comprising: one or more sensors comprising: a microphone; and a camera; one or more computers, and one or more storage devices on which are stored instructions that are operable, when executed by the one or more computers, to cause the one or more computers to: …” is rejected for reasons stated for Claims 1 and 10, and because prior art teaches: “a programmed general purpose computer and/or other data processing device along with suitable software or other operating instructions, one or more memories (including nontransient storage media that may store software and/or other operating instructions), and so on.” Subrami, Paragraph 43. Also note that the system can have “a microphone to capture sound data that is combined with image data to form video image data, etc. as is known in the art … an audio/video recording and display device (e.g., a camera, speaker and microphone that is part of a doorbell at the property 100) to receive audio/video data recorded from the property 100” Subrami, Paragraph 22. See statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
Claim 22 is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 7 in view of the Claim 16 rejection.
Claim 23 is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 1 in view of the Claim 16 rejection.
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
Prosecution Insights