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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/26/2026 has been entered.
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, 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.
Claims 1-13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D'Angelo (EP 1090378 A1) in view of Dohrmann (US 2006/0176167 A1 – cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 1, D'Angelo teaches a sensor assembly (Abstract; Figs. 1, 3-5; [0009]-[0010], [0027]-[0049]) comprising:
a sense element for detecting sensed events in a space ([0028]: motion sensor 23);
a communication port ([0018], [0027]: detector transmitter 25 / receiver 26);
a controller operatively coupled to the sense element and the communication port ([0032]: microprocessor 27), the controller configured to:
receive from the sense element an indication of a sensed event occurring in the space ([0041]: detector microprocessor 27 monitors motion sensor 23.);
when the sensor assembly is in a disarmed sensor state, not transmit an alarm message pertaining to the detected sensed events via the communication port ([0036] and [0039]: when a disarming signal is received, the detector microprocessor changes its status bit to indicate the system is disarmed. [0041]-[0043]: teaches that motion sensing/alarm response occurs when the system is armed, and that in the disarmed state the detector does not respond by transmitting alerts/alarms. [0031]-[0035]: describes periodic scanning/processing by the microprocessor and the existence of the motion sensor output regardless of state (i.e., the sense element still detects motion events in the environment; the controller’s firmware determines whether to act on them). D’Angelo explains that the microprocessors track status and perform decision/control functions according to firmware, and that the detector microprocessor processes output from the motion sensor and other inputs as part of its operation. Thus, D’Angelo at least teaches/strongly suggests that the controller can still monitor/receive sensor outputs while disarmed, while the disarmed status bit governs whether an alarm/alert transmission is permitted.);
when the sensor assembly is in an armed state ([0036], [0038], and [0041]: armed state), transmit an alarm message pertaining to the detected sensed event via the communication port ([0042]–[0043]: detector transmitter 25 sends an alert signal to control unit 22); and
detect a plurality of subsequent sensed events (fig. 5; [0045]-[0049]: teaches the detector microprocessor continues monitoring the sense element for subsequent sensed events.)
However, D'Angelo does not expressly disclose "store, in response to receiving a swinger count message that defines a swinger count from a control panel, the swinger count in memory at the sensor assembly; transmit, to the control panel, an acknowledge message in response to receiving the swinger count message;…after transmitting the alarm message pertaining to the detected sensed event, receive from the sense element an indication of a plurality of subsequent sensed events occurring in the space; and transmit a corresponding alarm message for each of the plurality of subsequent sensed events until a number of transmitted alarm messages reaches a swinger count, and when the number of transmitted alarm messages reaches the swinger count, stop transmitting a corresponding alarm message for each of the plurality of subsequent sensed events." Specifically, D'Angelo teaches suppression of repeated alerts via timing-based alert suppression logic (fig. 5; [0044]-[0050]), thereby reducing nuisance repeated transmissions. Additionally, D’Angelo discloses a sensor assembly comprising a sense element, a communication port, and a controller that receives indications of sensed events and transmits alarm messages via the communication port (Abstract; Figs. 1, 3-5; [0027]-[0043]). D’Angelo further discloses that the detector microprocessor stores and uses operating parameters ([0018], [0020], [0031]-[0042]) and that these parameters can be provided via the communication link from the control unit ([0018], [0020], [0037]-[0039]). Thus, D’Angelo teaches a detector/controller capable of receiving and storing operational values communicated via its port. Furthermore, D’Angelo expressly teaches an acknowledgment/confirmation transmission by the detector in response to receiving a message from the control unit. Specifically, when detector receiver 26 receives an arming signal from control transmitter 33, detector microprocessor 27 changes its status and “causes detector transmitter 25 to return [a] coded arming confirmation signal,” which is received at the control unit ([0038]). Likewise, when detector receiver 26 receives a disarming signal from control transmitter 33, detector microprocessor 27 changes its status and “causes detector transmitter 25 to return a coded disarming confirmation signal,” which is received at the control unit ([0039]). Thus, D’Angelo teaches the general concept of transmitting a confirmation/acknowledgment message from the detector to the control unit in response to receipt of a command/message from the control unit.
Nonetheless, in an analogous art, Dohrmann teaches a building monitoring/alarm system including sensors located within a building or user premises (e.g., homes, townhouses, businesses) operatively coupled to a remote control panel (fig. 1, abstract, [0015], [0091]-[0094], [0342]). The system can be configured with a swinger count/limit, wherein the control logic counts transmitted alarms and ceases further transmissions after a predetermined threshold is reached (Dohrmann [0086], [0121]-[0123], [0169], [0181]). Thus, Dohrmann teaches the claimed limitation of transmitting alarm messages for subsequent events until a maximum swinger count is reached and then suppressing further transmissions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify D’Angelo’s detector microprocessor to implement Dohrmann’s swinger-count threshold and to provide that swinger count to the sensor via the control unit/panel as a communicated configuration value (and store it locally at the sensor), because D’Angelo teaches a microprocessor-based theft detector having memory/firmware and bidirectional encoded messaging between the control unit and the detector (D’Angelo [0030]-[0033], [0036]-[0039], Fig. 4), and Dohrmann teaches that a swinger count is a configurable threshold used to cap repeated alarm reporting for a zone/sensor to reduce nuisance signaling (Dohrmann [0121]–[0123], [0169], [0181]).
Implementing Dohrmann’s swinger-count/swinger-maximum logic—where alarm reports are counted up to a preset maximum and further alarm transmissions are suppressed once the maximum is reached—in the detector of D’Angelo would have predictably improved system operation by limiting repeated alarm/alert transmissions and conserving communication resources. Further, Dohrmann recognizes that alarm-message communications may be subject to reliability issues such as bit errors and message collisions (e.g., Dohrmann [0009], [0011]). Limiting repeated transmissions at the source predictably reduces channel loading and decreases the likelihood of collisions/corruption. Because D’Angelo already exchanges encoded messages and returns confirmation messages in response to received commands (D’Angelo [0038]-[0039]), it would have been an obvious, routine implementation detail to deliver the swinger-count value to the detector as a message, store that value in detector memory for use by the detector controller, and transmit an acknowledgment/confirmation message upon receipt, consistent with D’Angelo’s established bidirectional communication protocol.
Regarding claim 2, D'Angelo in view of Dohrmann discloses the sensor assembly of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to: receive the swinger count via the communication port (D’Angelo discloses a sensor assembly comprising a sense element, a communication port, and a controller that receives indications of sensed events and transmits alarm messages via the communication port (Abstract; Figs. 3-5; [0027]-[0043]). D’Angelo further discloses that the detector microprocessor stores and uses operating parameters ([0018], [0020], [0032]-[0039]) and that these parameters can be provided via the communication link from the control unit ([0018], [0020], [0037]-[0039]). Thus, D’Angelo teaches a detector/controller capable of receiving and storing operational values communicated via its port. Dohrmann, as discussed with respect to claim 1, discloses swinger count logic, i.e., transmitting a number of alarm messages up to a set maximum and then suppressing further transmissions. In particular, Dohrmann teaches that a swinger count is established once the swinger maximum is reached, further alarms for that zone are not transmitted (Dohrmann, [0169], [0181]). Thus, Dohrmann clearly describes the use of a swinger parameter that limits transmissions after a preset number of occurrences. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the detector/controller of D’Angelo to receive the swinger count parameter via its communication port and store it locally in memory, as D’Angelo already teaches receiving and storing other operating parameters, while adopting the specific swinger-count functionality from Dohrmann. Doing so would yield the predictable benefit of enabling localized alarm suppression at the sensor, reducing repeated transmissions and communication load, and providing greater flexibility in system design. Such a modification would represent no more than the predictable use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way.).
Regarding claim 3, D'Angelo in view of Dohrmann discloses the sensor assembly of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to: compare the number of transmitted alarm messages to the swinger count to determine when the number of transmitted alarm messages reaches the swinger count (D’Angelo discloses a sensor assembly including a sense element, communication port, and controller for receiving events and transmitting alarm messages, with the controller capable of receiving and storing operational parameters provided over the communication link (Abstract; Figs. 3-5; [0027]-[0039]). D’Angelo further teaches that the detector microprocessor processes data and makes decisions based on stored operating parameters ([0032]). Dohrmann discloses that an alarm system is configured with a swinger count that limits the number of alarms transmitted, such that once the maximum is reached further alarms for that zone are not transmitted (Dohrmann [0181]). To achieve this functionality, Dohrmann necessarily requires that the system controller track the number of transmitted alarm messages and compare that value to the stored swinger maximum in order to determine when the limit has been reached. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement this same comparison logic in the sensor controller of D’Angelo, as D’Angelo already discloses a microprocessor that stores operating parameters and executes decision logic based on them. Incorporating Dohrmann’s swinger threshold comparison would have been a straightforward application of known control techniques to achieve the predictable result of suppressing alarms once a preset limit is reached. Such a modification would represent no more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions).
Regarding claim 4, D'Angelo in view of Dohrmann discloses the sensor assembly of claim 3, wherein the controller includes a counter to maintain a count of the number of transmitted alarm messages (D’Angelo discloses a sensor assembly including a controller that receives and stores operating parameters and makes decisions based on those parameters ([0032]-[0039]). D’Angelo therefore teaches a controller capable of executing logic involving comparisons and stored values. Dohrmann further discloses that the alarm system employs swinger logic wherein alarms are transmitted up to a maximum number, after which further transmissions are suppressed. In particular, Dohrmann teaches that a swinger counter is incremented with each alarm message, and once the swinger maximum is reached, further transmissions are blocked (Dohrmann, [0169], [0181]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Dohrmann’s swinger logic in the controller of D’Angelo using a counter to maintain the number of transmitted messages. A counter is the standard and predictable mechanism for tracking repeated events in control systems, and incorporating it into D’Angelo’s programmable detector microprocessor to maintain the count of transmitted alarms would have been nothing more than the predictable use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way.).
Regarding claim 5, D'Angelo in view of Dohrmann discloses the sensor assembly of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to: receive a message via the communication port that indicates that the number of transmitted alarm messages has reached the swinger count, and in response, the controller is configured to stop transmitting the alarm messages for each of the plurality of subsequent sensed events (D’Angelo discloses a sensor assembly comprising a sense element, communication port, and controller that transmits alarm messages via the communication port and can receive operational signals/parameters from a control unit ([0027]-[0039]). In particular, D’Angelo teaches a detector microprocessor configured to respond to received messages by changing operating state ([0037]-[0042]: arm/disarm, alarm activation). Dohrmann discloses swinger logic wherein a central panel maintains a swinger counter and, once the maximum number of transmitted alarms has been reached, further transmissions are suppressed ([0169], [0181]). This teaching suggests that the control panel communicates to the relevant zone/sensor assembly that no further transmissions will be accepted, i.e., a message indicating that the swinger maximum has been reached. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the controller of D’Angelo to receive such a message via its communication port and, in response, stop transmitting further alarms for subsequent sensed events, as taught by Dohrmann. Both references address the same problem of preventing excessive repeated alarm signaling, and combining Dohrmann’s swinger suppression messaging with D’Angelo’s two-way programmable detector would have been a straightforward modification yielding the predictable result of distributed suppression.).
Regarding claim 6, D'Angelo in view of Dohrmann discloses the sensor assembly of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to: receive a sensor arm message via the communication port; in response to receiving the sensor arm message, switching the sensor assembly from a disarmed sensor state to an armed sensor state; when in the disarmed sensor state, the controller is configured to: receive from the sense element an indication of sensed events occurring in the space; not transmit an alarm message pertaining to the detected sensed events via the communication port; when in the armed sensor state, the controller is configured to: receive from the sense element an indication of the sensed event occurring in the space; transmit the alarm message pertaining to the detected sensed event via the communication port; after transmit the alarm message pertaining to the detected sensed event, receiving from the sense element an indication of the plurality of subsequent sensed events occurring in the space; and transmit the alarm message for each of the plurality of subsequent sensed events until the number of transmitted alarm messages reaches the swinger count, and when the number of transmitted alarm messages reaches the swinger count, stop transmitting an alarm message in response to each of the plurality of subsequent sensed events (D’Angelo discloses a theft detection system in which a detector/controller communicates with a remote control unit via a communication port, and is configured to receive an arm/disarm message from the control unit ([0036]-[0039]). In response to an arming message, the detector switches from a disarmed to an armed state, and vice versa in response to a disarming message ([0037]-[0040]). D’Angelo further discloses that in the disarmed state, the detector does not respond to sensed motion events ([0041]), whereas in the armed state, the detector controller responds to sensed events by transmitting an alert/alarm message via the communication port ([0041]-[0043]). Dohrmann discloses swinger count logic, i.e., that alarm transmissions continue until a maximum number is reached, at which point no further transmissions are sent ([0169], [0181]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Dohrmann’s swinger count limitation into the armed-state alarm transmission behavior of D’Angelo. Both references are concerned with suppressing nuisance alarms and preventing repeated transmissions, and applying the known swinger suppression logic of Dohrmann to the armed detector of D’Angelo would have been a straightforward and predictable enhancement. The combination would result in a detector that (i) receives arming/disarming messages to change operational state, (ii) ignores events when disarmed, and (iii) when armed, transmits alarms until the swinger maximum is reached, after which it stops transmitting, as claimed.).
Regarding claim 7, D'Angelo in view of Dohrmann discloses the sensor assembly of claim 6, wherein the controller is configured to: transmit the alarm message for each of the plurality of subsequent sensed events until the number of transmitted alarm messages reaches the swinger count, and when the number of transmitted alarm messages reaches the swinger count, stop transmitting the alarm message in response to each of the plurality of subsequent sensed events until a sensor disarm message is received via the communication port followed by a sensor arm message (D’Angelo discloses a sensor assembly with a controller configured to receive an arm message via its communication port and to switch between disarmed and armed states accordingly ([0036]-[0040]). In the disarmed state, sensed events do not trigger alarm transmissions, whereas in the armed state, the controller transmits alarm messages in response to sensed events ([0041]-[0043]). Dohrmann discloses swinger logic whereby alarm messages are transmitted until a swinger maximum is reached, and once the maximum is reached, further transmissions are suppressed until the system is reset (Dohrmann [0181]). The reset is achieved by disarming and then rearming the zone/system, restoring the counter and enabling new alarm transmissions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Dohrmann’s swinger reset behavior into the armed/disarmed control of D’Angelo. Doing so would result in a detector that (i) continues transmitting alarms until the swinger maximum is reached, (ii) then suppresses further alarms, and (iii) resumes transmission only after receipt of a disarm message followed by an arm message, as claimed. Both references address the problem of avoiding repeated nuisance alarms, and combining them represents no more than the predictable use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way.).
Regarding claim 8, D'Angelo in view of Dohrmann discloses the sensor assembly of claim 1, wherein the communication port is a bi-directional wireless communication port or a bidirectional wired communication port (D'Angelo figs. 3-5; [0018], [0027]-[0033]).
Same motivation to combine/modify as claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, D'Angelo in view of Dohrmann discloses the sensor assembly of claim 1, wherein the alarm messages are transmitted via the communication port to a control panel that is remote from the sensor assembly, and wherein the control panel reports one or more alarms that correspond to one or more of the alarm messages to a central monitoring station (D’Angelo discloses a sensor assembly comprising a motion sensor, communication port, and controller that transmits alarm/alert messages via its communication port to a control unit remote from the sensor assembly (figs. 2-5: detector transmitter 25, receiver 26 and control unit 22; [0027]-[0033], [0041]-[0043]). Dohrmann discloses that a central control panel receives alarm messages from distributed sensors/zones and in turn reports alarms to a central monitoring station (Dohrmann fig.1; [0091]-[0094], [0169], [0181], [0189]). The panel processes incoming sensor alarms and communicates with a remote central station, consistent with well-known alarm reporting architectures. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement D’Angelo’s remote control unit as a control panel that not only receives alarms from the sensor assembly but also forwards alarm reports to a central monitoring station, as taught by Dohrmann. Both references address distributed alarm systems where local detectors report events upstream, and applying Dohrmann’s panel-to-monitoring-station reporting to D’Angelo’s sensor-to-control unit communication would have been a routine combination yielding the expected result of centralized monitoring.).
Regarding claim 10, D'Angelo discloses a method for controlling a monitoring system (Abstract; Figs. 1, 3-5; [0009]-[0010], [0027]-[0049]), the monitoring system including a sensor positioned within an area for detecting one or more sensed events in the area ([0028]: motion sensor 23), the sensor operatively coupled to a remote control unit from the sensor (Figs. 1, 3-5: control unit 22), the method comprising:
when the sensor assembly is in a disarmed sensor state, not transmit an alarm message pertaining to the detected sensed events via the communication port ([0036] and [0039]: when a disarming signal is received, the detector microprocessor changes its status bit to indicate the system is disarmed. [0041]-[0043]: teaches that motion sensing/alarm response occurs when the system is armed, and that in the disarmed state the detector does not respond by transmitting alerts/alarms. [0031]-[0035]: describes periodic scanning/processing by the microprocessor and the existence of the motion sensor output regardless of state (i.e., the sense element still detects motion events in the environment; the controller’s firmware determines whether to act on them). D’Angelo explains that the microprocessors track status and perform decision/control functions according to firmware, and that the detector microprocessor processes output from the motion sensor and other inputs as part of its operation. Thus, D’Angelo at least teaches/strongly suggests that the controller can still monitor/receive sensor outputs while disarmed, while the disarmed status bit governs whether an alarm/alert transmission is permitted.);
the sensor detecting a sensed event in the area ([0041]: detector microprocessor 27 monitors motion sensor 23) and when the sensor assembly is in an armed sensor state ([0036], [0038], and [0041]: armed state), transmitting a corresponding alarm message pertaining to the sensed event to the remote control unit ([0027]-[0029], [0041]-[0043], detector transmitter 25 sends an alert signal to control unit 22);
the sensor detecting a plurality of subsequent sensed events in the area (fig. 5; [0045]-[0049]: teaches that the theft detector monitors for subsequent sensed events).
However, D'Angelo does not expressly disclose "building monitoring system...control panel... the control panel transmitting a swinger count message to the sensor that defines a swinger count; the sensor receiving the swinger count message from the control panel and storing the swinger count in the sensor; the sensor transmitting, to the control panel, an acknowledge message in response to receiving the swinger count message;…the sensor transmitting a corresponding alarm message for each of the plurality of subsequent sensed events to the control panel until a number of transmitted alarm messages reaches a swinger count, and when the number of transmitted alarm messages reaches the swinger count, the sensor stops transmitting a corresponding alarm message for subsequent sensed event to the control panel." Specifically, D’Angelo teaches that the controller processes those subsequent events but transmits additional alarm indications only according to a timing-based suppression algorithm, not a swinger count-based suppression mechanism. Additionally, D’Angelo discloses a sensor assembly comprising a sense element, a communication port, and a controller that receives indications of sensed events and transmits alarm messages via the communication port (Abstract; Figs. 1, 3-5; [0027]-[0043]). D’Angelo further discloses that the detector microprocessor stores and uses operating parameters ([0018], [0020], [0031]-[0039]) and that these parameters can be provided via the communication link from the control unit ([0018], [0020], [0037]-[0039]). Thus, D’Angelo teaches a detector/controller capable of receiving and storing operational values communicated via its port. Furthermore, D’Angelo expressly teaches an acknowledgment/confirmation transmission by the detector in response to receiving a message from the control unit. Specifically, when detector receiver 26 receives an arming signal from control transmitter 33, detector microprocessor 27 changes its status and “causes detector transmitter 25 to return [a] coded arming confirmation signal,” which is received at the control unit ([0038]). Likewise, when detector receiver 26 receives a disarming signal from control transmitter 33, detector microprocessor 27 changes its status and “causes detector transmitter 25 to return a coded disarming confirmation signal,” which is received at the control unit ([0039]). Thus, D’Angelo teaches the general concept of transmitting a confirmation/acknowledgment message from the detector to the control unit in response to receipt of a command/message from the control unit.
In an analogous art, Dohrmann teaches a building monitoring system including sensors located within a building or user premises (e.g., homes, townhouses, businesses) operatively coupled to a remote control panel (fig. 1, abstract, [0015], [0091]-[0094], [0342]). The system can be configured with a swinger count/limit, wherein the control logic counts transmitted alarms and ceases further transmissions after a predetermined threshold is reached (Dohrmann [0086], [0121]-[0123], [0169], [0181]). Thus, Dohrmann teaches the claimed limitation of transmitting alarm messages for subsequent events until a maximum swinger count is reached and then suppressing further transmissions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify D’Angelo’s detector microprocessor to implement Dohrmann’s swinger-count threshold and to provide that swinger count to the sensor via the control unit/panel as a communicated configuration value (and store it locally at the sensor), because D’Angelo teaches a microprocessor-based theft detector having memory/firmware and bidirectional encoded messaging between the control unit and the detector (D’Angelo [0030]-[0033], [0036]-[0039], Fig. 4), and Dohrmann teaches that a swinger count is a configurable threshold used to cap repeated alarm reporting for a zone/sensor to reduce nuisance signaling (Dohrmann [0121]–[0123], [0169], [0181]).
Implementing Dohrmann’s swinger-count/swinger-maximum logic—where alarm reports are counted up to a preset maximum and further alarm transmissions are suppressed once the maximum is reached—in the detector of D’Angelo would have predictably improved system operation by limiting repeated alarm/alert transmissions and conserving communication resources. Further, Dohrmann recognizes that alarm-message communications may be subject to reliability issues such as bit errors and message collisions (e.g., Dohrmann [0009], [0011]). Limiting repeated transmissions at the source predictably reduces channel loading and decreases the likelihood of collisions/corruption. Because D’Angelo already exchanges encoded messages and returns confirmation messages in response to received commands (D’Angelo [0038]-[0039]), it would have been an obvious, routine implementation detail to deliver the swinger-count value to the detector as a message, store that value in detector memory for use by the detector controller, and transmit an acknowledgment/confirmation message upon receipt, consistent with D’Angelo’s established bidirectional communication protocol.
Regarding claim 11, D'Angelo in view of Dohrmann discloses the method of claim 10, wherein the sensor stops transmitting a corresponding alarm message for subsequent sensed event to the control panel for a configurable period of time (D’Angelo discloses time-based alert suppression using a selectable reference interval that governs whether subsequent sensed events trigger further transmissions (Fig. 5; [0045]-[0049]). Thus, D’Angelo teaches stopping transmissions for a configurable period. Dohrmann, in an analogous art, teaches swinger count logic that suppresses further transmissions after a set number of repeated alarms for building alarm system with a control panel (fig. 1; [0121]-[0123], [0169], [0181]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify D’Angelo to incorporate Dohrmann’s swinger-count threshold and to implement the post-threshold suppression at the sensor for a configurable period using the configurable timing parameterization already taught by D’Angelo (Fig. 5; [0045]-[0049]). This is a predictable use of known elements to reduce nuisance/repeat signaling: Dohrmann supplies when to suppress (after N events), and D’Angelo supplies for how long (a configurable time window), yielding the claimed “sensor stops transmitting…for a configurable period of time.”).
Regarding claim 12, D'Angelo in view of Dohrmann discloses the method of claim 10, wherein the sensor includes an armed state and a disarmed state, and wherein the sensor transmits alarm messages to the control panel in the armed state but not transmit alarm messages to the control panel in the disarmed state, and wherein the sensor stops transmitting the corresponding alarm messages for the subsequent sensed events until the sensor is switched from the armed state to the disarmed state and then back to the armed state (D’Angelo discloses that the theft detector includes an armed state and a disarmed state ([0036]-[0041]). In the armed state, motion sensor 23 output causes detector transmitter 25 to send alarm messages to the control unit ([0041]-[0043]). In the disarmed state, the detector does not transmit alarms ([0040]-[0041], [0044]). Dohrmann teaches, in the context of a building monitoring system with a control panel (figs. 1-2, abstract, [0015], [0091]-[0094], [0342]), the use of swinger count logic wherein alarm transmissions are suppressed once the swinger count is reached, and the logic is reset only after a change in system state (e.g., disarming and re-arming of the panel) ([0121], [0169], [0181], [0189]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Dohrmann’s swinger count suppression into D’Angelo’s armed/disarmed state operation, such that the sensor stops transmitting alarm messages for subsequent sensed events once the swinger count is reached, and remains suppressed until the sensor is cycled from the disarmed state back to the armed state. The combination represents a predictable use of prior art elements to achieve the recognized benefit of reducing nuisance transmissions while maintaining control reset functionality.).
Regarding claim 13, D'Angelo in view of Dohrmann discloses the method of claim 10, wherein the control panel reports each of the alarm messages received from the sensor to a central monitoring station (D’Angelo discloses a monitoring system including a sensor and a control unit, with the sensor transmitting alarm messages to the control unit when events are detected (see [0027]-[0044], Figs. 3–5). However, D’Angelo does not disclose a control panel that reports alarm messages to a central monitoring station. Dohrmann discloses a control panel coupled to sensors and further configured to report received alarm messages to a central monitoring station (see Fig. 1; [0091]-[0094]). The central station receives alarm signals from the control panel for offsite monitoring and response. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the system of D’Angelo, as modified by Dohrmann’s swinger count logic, to further include the central station reporting functionality disclosed by Dohrmann, in order to provide offsite monitoring, as this represents a well-known and predictable feature of building monitoring systems.).
Regarding claim 15, D'Angelo in view of Dohrmann discloses the method of claim 10, wherein the control panel counts the number of alarm messages transmitted by the sensor and received by the control panel, and reports to the sensor when the number of transmitted alarm messages reaches the swinger count (D’Angelo discloses two-way communication between the sensor and the control unit, including the control unit sending commands and configuration messages to the sensor (Fig. 4; [0027]-[0033], [0036]-[0042]). This framework supports the control unit transmitting information back to the sensor. Dohrmann teaches a building monitoring system with a control panel configured to implement swinger count logic ([0169], [0181], [0189]). In order to enforce this logic, Dohrmann teaches that the control panel counts the number of alarm messages received from a sensor zone until the swinger count is reached. Although Dohrmann does not expressly disclose that the control panel reports back to the sensor once the swinger count has been reached, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Dohrmann’s swinger counting logic into the two-way communication framework of D’Angelo, such that the control panel would also report to the sensor when the swinger count was reached. Doing so would have been a predictable use of known elements to reduce bandwidth usage and nuisance signaling, consistent with the established functions of both systems.).
Regarding claim 16, D'Angelo in view of Dohrmann discloses the method of claim 10, wherein the sensor includes one or more of: a motion sensor, a door sensor, a temperature sensor, a glass break sensor, an infrared sensor, a light sensor, a water sensor, a smoke sensor, a fire sensor, a noise sensor and a video sensor with video analytics (D’Angelo discloses a monitoring system wherein the sensor is a motion sensor ([0028]: motion sensor 23). Dohrmann further teaches that a building monitoring system may include a variety of sensor types, such as door/window detectors, motion detectors, glass break detectors, smoke detectors, fire detectors, and other environmental sensors ([0092], [0143], [0266]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the additional known sensor modalities disclosed in Dohrmann into the monitoring framework of D’Angelo. Both references are directed to event-detection systems, and Dohrmann expressly teaches that such diversity of sensors is beneficial in a building monitoring environment to address intrusion, fire, and other hazards. Doing so would have been a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.).
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over D’Angelo (EP 1090378 A1) in view of Dohrmann (US 2006/0176167 A1). Claims 17-20 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth with respect to claims 1-6, 8 above. Claims 17-20 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions for executing steps corresponding to the system features of claims 1-6, 8 above. The scope and content of the recited limitations are substantially the same as those of claims 1-6, 8 already found unpatentable over D’Angelo in view of Dohrmann. Accordingly, claims 17-20 are unpatentable over the same combination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the applied references fail to teach or suggest “transmit, to the control panel, an acknowledge message in response to receiving the swinger count message”; however, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
With respect to the newly added “acknowledge message” limitation, D’Angelo expressly teaches an acknowledgment/confirmation transmission by the detector in response to receiving a message from the control unit. Specifically, when detector receiver 26 receives an arming signal from control transmitter 33, detector microprocessor 27 changes its status and “causes detector transmitter 25 to return [a] coded arming confirmation signal,” which is received at the control unit. (D’Angelo, [0038]). Likewise, when detector receiver 26 receives a disarming signal from control transmitter 33, detector microprocessor 27 changes its status and “causes detector transmitter 25 to return a coded disarming confirmation signal,” which is received at the control unit. (D’Angelo, [0039]). Thus, D’Angelo teaches the general concept of transmitting a confirmation/acknowledgment message from the detector to the control unit in response to receipt of a command/message from the control unit.
Although D’Angelo’s confirmation examples are described in the context of arming/disarming commands, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the same acknowledgment/confirmation signaling technique for other control-panel-to-sensor messages, including a configuration message that defines an operating parameter (e.g., a swinger count) that the sensor stores and uses for alarm suppression logic. D’Angelo itself explains that the microprocessors encode/decode multiple messages between units and perform decision/control functions according to firmware stored in memory, enabling customized operation and message types (D’Angelo, [0031]-[0033]). Therefore, applying D’Angelo’s known confirmation/acknowledgment mechanism (used for arming/disarming) to confirm receipt of a swinger count configuration message would have been a predictable use of known communication protocol techniques to improve reliability and ensure the control panel can verify that the sensor successfully received/stored the transmitted operating parameter, especially in wireless message exchanges.
Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the combination of references, as applied, teaches or at least renders obvious the claimed “acknowledge message” limitation, and the rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues that the applied references fail to teach or suggest “when the sensor assembly is in a disarmed sensor state, not transmit an alarm message pertaining to the detected sensed events via the communication port”; however, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
D’Angelo teaches the “disarmed” operating state and teaches suppression of alarm/alert transmissions in the disarmed state. In particular, D’Angelo discloses that when a disarming signal is received, the detector microprocessor changes its status bit to indicate the system is disarmed. (D’Angelo [0039]). D’Angelo further teaches that motion sensing/alarm response occurs when the system is armed, and that in the disarmed state the detector does not respond by transmitting alerts/alarms (see D’Angelo [0041]-[0043] (armed state: checks motion sensor output and sends alert signal upon detected motion)).
With respect to Applicant’s assertion that the claim requires the controller to receive sensed-event indications even while disarmed, D’Angelo describes periodic scanning/processing by the microprocessor and the existence of the motion sensor output regardless of state (i.e., the sense element still detects motion events in the environment; the controller’s firmware determines whether to act on them). D’Angelo explains that the microprocessors track status and perform decision/control functions according to firmware, and that the detector microprocessor processes output from the motion sensor and other inputs as part of its operation. (D’Angelo [0031]-[0035]). Thus, D’Angelo at least teaches/strongly suggests that the controller can still monitor/receive sensor outputs while disarmed, while the disarmed status bit governs whether an alarm/alert transmission is permitted.
Further, even if Applicant reads D’Angelo’s “does not check for motion sensor output in the disarmed state” as excluding literal receipt in that particular embodiment (D’Angelo [0041]), that disclosure is expressly phrased as an example (“in one embodiment”), and it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement disarming as inhibiting transmission/response while still optionally receiving/monitoring sensor indications (e.g., for diagnostics, state readiness, or to immediately resume alarm logic upon re-arming), which is a predictable software control choice in a microprocessor-based sensor system.
Accordingly, Applicant has not shown a patentable distinction over D’Angelo (alone for the disarmed/armed behavior, and with Dohrmann for the swinger-count limitations), and the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAJSHEED O BLACK-CHILDRESS whose telephone number is (571)270-7838. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 10am to 5pm.
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, Quan0Zhen Wang can be reached at (571) 272-3114. 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.
/RAJSHEED O BLACK-CHILDRESS/Examiner, Art Unit 2685