DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office Action is in response to amendment filed on 09/23/2025. Claims 1, 3, 8, 10, and 15-20 have been amended. No Claim have been cancelled. Claims 21-23 have been newly added. Claims 1 – 23 remain pending in the application.
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 .
Response to Amendment
The amended filed 09/23/2025 has been entered. See above on lines 1-3 of the office action.
The claim rejections 35 U.S.C § 101 to claims 15-20 has been withdrawn in view of the received amendment.
Response to Arguments
Remarks regarding rejections under 35 U.S.C § 102 filed 09/23/2025 Applicant’s
amendment to Independent Claims 1, 8, and 15 and arguments are
carefully considered and are persuasive. However, upon further consideration,
arguments are moot in view of new found prior art.
With respect to applicant’s argument to the remaining dependent claims 2-7, 9-
14, and 16-20 on pages 10 of the remark, the applicant is relying on the
newly added amendments of the independent claims 1, 8, and 15. Please
see examiner’s response above and the detail of the rejection below.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness
under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating
obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 8-9, 11, 13, 15-16, 18, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Romanowich et al. (US-20070039030-A1 hereafter Romanowich), in view of Kucharyson et al. (US-7843336-B2 hereafter Kucharyson).
Regarding claim 1 Romanowich disclose a method for communication between a plurality of security sensors (see Romanowich par.0011: “methods and apparatus of Surveillance systems including target detection and tracking functionality. The methods and apparatus of the present invention are Suitable for many various Surveillance applications and are particularly well-suited to critical Surveillance sites which need continuous coverage with a high degree of confidence and a high system reliability.”, par. 0013 “The surveillance system includes a first number of detection camera devices and a second number of controllable tracking camera devices.”), the method comprising:
identifying and tracking a potential security threat by a first security sensor; (see Romanowich par.0038 “A detection camera device (102, 104,106, 108) (first sensor) is used to initially detect an intruder or other object on the premises under Surveillance and obtain target information including target location coordinates.”),
identifying, by the first security sensor, one or more security sensors located within a predefined proximity of the first security sensor; (see Romanowich par.0038 “A detection camera device (102, 104,106, 108) (first sensor) is used to initially detect an intruder or other object on the premises under Surveillance and obtain target information including target location coordinates. The target location coordinates are forwarded, either directly or indirectly to a targeting camera device (110, 112)(one or more more sensors) which has the ability to view the target location.”),
Romanowich fails to disclose but Kucharyson teaches receiving, by the first security sensor, information identifying one or more current operational parameters of each of the one or more security sensors (see Kucharyson Col.5 lines 48-67: “This description uses the sensor 116 for illustrative purposes, although it will be understood that some or all of the actions 400 may be performed by any of the sensors 114-132 in the wireless security sensor system 100… The sensor 116 may obtain and analyze sensor data at step 402 for specified conditions indicating a threat. If the analysis does not indicate a possible threat in step 406, the sensor 116 may return to step 402 to obtain and analyze further sensor data. If a possible threat is indicated in step 406, the sensor 116 may consult a geographical map of the environment it is sensing to determine a geographical direction of the possible threat and identify a second sensor (for example, the sensor 114) that is nearest to the sensor 116 in that direction. Having identified the sensor 114, the sensor 116 may then send a wireless message to the sensor 114 using the ACP protocol, requesting that the sensor 114 verify the possible threat at step 408.”);
selecting, by the first security sensor, a second security sensor from the one or more security sensors, responsive to the first security sensor determining, based on the one or more current operational parameters of each of the one or more security sensors (see Kucharyson Col. lines: “the sensor 116 may consult a geographical map of the environment it is sensing to determine a geographical direction of the possible threat and identify a second sensor (for example, the sensor 114) that is nearest to the sensor 116 in that direction. Having identified the sensor 114, the sensor 116 may then send a wireless message to the sensor 114 using the ACP protocol, requesting that the sensor 114 verify the possible threat at step 408.”) that the second security sensor is capable of continuing the tracking of the potential security threat (see Kucharyson Col.6 lines 3-20: “In step 410, if the sensor 116 receives a reply message in the ACP protocol indicating that the sensor 114 has not verified the possible threat, the sensor 116 may return to step 402 to obtain and analyze further sensor data. If the sensor receives a message in step 410 that indicates that the sensor 114 has verified the possible threat, then in step 412 the sensor 116 may further consult the map and identify some elements of a collective sub-unit to be mustered for use in tracking the threat. The sensor 116 may select candidates for membership in the collective based upon the geographical location of sensors, the processing capabilities of sensors or relay devices, or other criteria… in step 412, the sensor 116 may send one or more wireless messages using the ACP protocol to the candidate sensors and relay devices to form the collective sub-unit. In step 414, the sensor 116 may send further messages using the ACP protocol to the components of the collective to determine whether they are prepared for tracking the threat.”); and
handing over, by the first security sensor, to the second security sensor, the tracking of the potential security threat, including transmitting, by the first security sensor, information related to the potential security threat to the second security sensor. (See Kucharyson Col.6 lines 15-30: “in step 412, the sensor 116 may send one or more wireless messages using the ACP protocol to the candidate sensors and relay devices to form the collective sub-unit. In step 414, the sensor 116 may send further messages using the ACP protocol to the components of the collective to determine whether they are prepared for tracking the threat. If the sensor 116 determines in step 414 that one or more components are not prepared, then in step 416 the sensor 116 may send further messages using the ACP protocol to cause the unprepared components to prepare themselves for tracking the threat… in step 422 the sensor 116 may send further messages in the ACP protocol to initiate tracking of the threat by the collective. ”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Romanowich teaching “detection camera device, including a fixed mounted camera, is used to initially detect a moving target, e.g., intruder, within its coverage area. Target information is collected and/or determined by the detection camera device. Target information, in some embodiments, includes estimated position of the target, e.g., in a universally recognizable 3D coordinate representation such as a GPS coordinate system. A tracking camera device locates the detection camera target, based on the coordinates of the object that it receives, directly or indirectly from the detection camera device. The tracking camera device then continues to track the target object as it moves through the premises.”,(see Romanowich par.0014), with Kucharyson teaching “subsets of the sensors 114-132 and the relay devices 106-112 of the wireless security sensor system 100 may collect information and perform analysis on a particular security threat or alarm condition by communicating only with each other. In this way, communication bandwidth may be utilized in only the portion of the network that enables the subset of sensors and relay devices to communicate with each other. Communication bandwidth in other portions of the wireless security sensor system 100 may be left free for other purposes.”, (see Kucharyson Col.3 lines 66-67 - Col.4 lines 1-8).
Regarding claim 8 is the system claim corresponding to the method claim 1 respectively, and rejected under the same rational set forth in connection with the rejection of claim 1. However, claim 8 also include limitations which are disclosed by the cited prior art Romanowich as following: one or more memories that, individually or in combination, have instructions stored thereon (see Romanowich par.0129: “Many of the above described methods or method steps can be implemented using machine executable instructions, such as Software, included in a machine readable medium Such as a memory device, e.g., RAM, floppy disk, etc. to control a machine, e.g., general purpose computer with or without additional hardware, to implement all or portions of the above described methods, e.g., in one or more nodes.”); and one or more processors each coupled with at least one of the one or more memories and, individually or in combination, configured to execute the instructions to (see Romanowich par.0129: “Many of the above described methods or method steps can be implemented using machine executable instructions, such as Software, included in a machine readable medium Such as a memory device, e.g., RAM, floppy disk, etc. to control a machine, e.g., general purpose computer with or without additional hardware, to implement all or portions of the above described methods, e.g., in one or more nodes. Accordingly, among other things, the present invention is directed to a machine-readable medium including machine executable instructions for causing a machine, e.g., processor and associated hardware which may be part of a test device, to perform one or more of the steps of the above-described method(s).”):
Regarding claim 15 is the computer-readable media claim corresponding to the method claim 1 respectively, and rejected under the same rational set forth in connection with the rejection of claim 1. However, claim 8 also include limitations which are disclosed by the cited prior art Romanowich as following: One or more non-transitory computer-readable media that, individually or in combination, have instructions stored thereon for communication between a plurality of security sensors, wherein the instructions are executable by one or more processors to cause the one or more processors, individually or in combination (see Romanowich par.0129: “Many of the above described methods or method steps can be implemented using machine executable instructions, such as Software, included in a machine readable medium Such as a memory device, e.g., RAM, floppy disk, etc. to control a machine, e.g., general purpose computer with or without additional hardware, to implement all or portions of the above described methods, e.g., in one or more nodes. Accordingly, among other things, the present invention is directed to a machine-readable medium including machine executable instructions for causing a machine, e.g., processor and associated hardware which may be part of a test device, to perform one or more of the steps of the above-described method(s).” ), to:
Regarding claim 2 Romanowich in view of Kucharyson disclose the method of claim 1, Romanowich further teaches wherein the one or more security sensors comprise one or more of: Internet of Things (IoT) devices, edge devices, mobile devices, security cameras, robots, and/or Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs). (See Romanowich par.0040 “Compressed video images can be sent over the network from the camera devices (102, 104, 106, 108, 110, 112) on demand, triggered by a breached event, and/or triggered by a confirmed breach event.”)
Regarding claim 9 is the system claim corresponding to the method claim 2 respectively, and rejected under the same rational set forth in connection with the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 16 is the computer-readable media claim corresponding to the method claim 2 respectively, and rejected under the same rational set forth in connection with the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 4 Romanowich in view of Kucharyson disclose the method of claim 1, Romanowich further teaches wherein proximity of the one or more security sensors to the first security sensor is determined by at least one of: Global Positioning System (GPS) coordinates, triangulation, and/or a periodic poll from the first security sensor. (See Romanowich par.0021 “the present invention is the use of a portable coordinate system, e.g., a GPS coordinate system. Each of the elements in the system, as well as guards investigating a target detection, can interchange data/information associated with the same target and the data/information can be processed, e.g., obtaining a more precise position fix using data/information from multiple cameras, e.g., using triangulation techniques.” Par.0073 “Multi-camera target position triangulation module 422 uses camera detection target information, e.g., GPS target fixes, camera orientation and setting information, and known camera position location and mounting information, from multiple cameras observing the same target to triangulate the target position and obtain a triangulated position fix, which is generally a more precise position fix than any single camera could obtain on its own.”.).
Regarding claim 11 is the system claim corresponding to the method claim 4 respectively, and rejected under the same rational set forth in connection with the rejection of claim 4.
Regarding claim 18 is the computer-readable media claim corresponding to the method claim 4 respectively, and rejected under the same rational set forth in connection with the rejection of claim 4.
Regarding claim 6 Romanowich in view of Kucharyson disclose the method of claim 1, Romanowich further teaches wherein identifying the potential security threat includes identifying detected target location information. (See Romanowich par.0038 “The tracking camera device (110, 112) continues to track the target as it moves throughout the premises within its coverage area, e.g., with the tracking camera being position controlled to follow the target. Position control may include pan, tilt, and/or Zoom settings of the tracking camera device associated with a three dimensional target location. The location of the target is also simultaneously tracked within the detection camera's field of view by the detection camera, e.g., generally with less resolution than achieved with the tracking camera, as the detection camera cannot be repositioned to follow the targets movements. Controlled target tracking handoff operations may be performed, e.g., between tracking camera device 1110 and tracking camera device M 112, as a target moves from one coverage area to another so that the target tracking is maintained uninterrupted.”)
Regarding claim 13 is the system claim corresponding to the method claim 6 respectively, and rejected under the same rational set forth in connection with the rejection of claim 6.
Regarding claim 21 Romanowich in view of Kucharyson disclose the method of claim 1, Romanowich further teaches wherein the one or more current operational parameters include a current battery level, a current location, or a current physical constraint of each of the one or more security sensors. (see Romanowich par.0067: “Status information 434 includes information identifying the operational status of camera 1, e.g., camera device operating normally/camera device failed…Status information 434 may also include information identifying faults, conditions, and/or problems in the camera device, e.g., Zoom non-functional, power Supply fail, battery low, controllable mount problem, weak or no received signal, failed self-test”).
Regarding claim 22 Romanowich in view of Kucharyson disclose the method of claim 21, Kucharyson further teaches wherein receiving the information comprises receiving, by the first security sensor, the information identifying the current location of each of the one or more security sensors (see Kucharyson Col.5 lines 48-67: “This description uses the sensor 116 for illustrative purposes, although it will be understood that some or all of the actions 400 may be performed by any of the sensors 114-132 in the wireless security sensor system 100… The sensor 116 may obtain and analyze sensor data at step 402 for specified conditions indicating a threat. If the analysis does not indicate a possible threat in step 406, the sensor 116 may return to step 402 to obtain and analyze further sensor data. If a possible threat is indicated in step 406, the sensor 116 may consult a geographical map of the environment it is sensing to determine a geographical direction of the possible threat and identify a second sensor (for example, the sensor 114) that is nearest to the sensor 116 in that direction. Having identified the sensor 114, the sensor 116 may then send a wireless message to the sensor 114 using the ACP protocol, requesting that the sensor 114 verify the possible threat at step 408.”); and
wherein selecting the second security sensor comprises selecting, by the first security sensor, the second security sensor from the one or more security sensors, responsive to the first security sensor determining, based on the current location of the second security sensor, that the second security sensor is capable of continuing the tracking of the potential security threat. (See Kucharyson Col.6 lines 45-54: “The sensor 116 may analyze its sensor information to determine whether the threat is moving. If not, the collective may move on to tracking the threat in step 422. If the threat is determined to be moving in step 414, a component of the collective may consult a geographical map including information regarding the orientation of the sensor 116 and its area of coverage to determine a direction in which the threat is moving. The component may further consult the map to identify a sensor whose area of coverage is in the direction that the threat is moving, such as the sensor 118.”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Romanowich in view of in view of Kucharyson teaching of claim 21, with Kucharyson teaching “The sensor 118 may then determine whether it is ready to track the threat moving in the determined direction from its present position. If the sensor 118 determines that it is prepared to track the moving threat, then the collective may move on to tracking the threat in step 422. However, if the sensor 118 determines that it is not ready to track the threat in step 414, the sensor 118 may prepare itself in step 416 by actions such as reorienting its field of view by panning, tilting or zooming. It may thus obtain a position in which it will be able to sense the threat when the threat moves into the field of view of the sensor 118.”, (see Kucharyson Col.6 lines 55-65).
Claim 3, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Romanowich et al. (US-20070039030-A1 hereafter Romanowich), in view of Kucharyson et al. (US-7843336-B2 hereafter Kucharyson), in further view of Funk et al. (US-20180178781-A1 hereafter Funk).
Regarding claim 3 Romanowich in view of Kucharyson disclose the method of claim 1, Romanowich in view of Kucharyson appear to be silence However Funk teaches wherein the one or more security sensors periodically exchange at least the information using an Application Programming Interface (API). (See Funk par.0060 “receiving the at least one first sensor data from each of two or more IoT-capable devices via machine-to-machine communications might comprise receiving the at least one first sensor data from each of two or more IoT-capable devices via machine-to-machine communications, via one or more application programming interfaces (“APIs”) established between the computing system and each of the two or more IoT-capable devices.”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Romanowich in view of in view of Kucharyson teaching of claim 1, with Funk teaching “ the first set of instructions, when executed by the at least one first processor, might further cause the IoT-capable device to: determine whether at least one first sensor data from the one or more first sensors exceeds a predetermined threshold for each corresponding type of sensor; wherein sending the at least one first sensor data to the computing system via machine-to-machine communications, via the first transceiver, might comprise sending the at least one first sensor data to the computing system via machine-to-machine communications, via the first transceiver, in response to a determination that the at least one first sensor data from the one or more first sensors exceeds the predetermined threshold for each corresponding type of sensor; and in response to a determination that at least one second sensor data from the one or more first sensors does not exceed the predetermined threshold for at least one corresponding type of sensor, prevent the at least one second sensor data from being sent to the computing system.”, (see Funk par.0061).
Regarding claim 10 is the system claim corresponding to the method claim 3 respectively, and rejected under the same rational set forth in connection with the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 17 is the computer-readable media claim corresponding to the method claim 3 respectively, and rejected under the same rational set forth in connection with the rejection of claim 3.
Claims 5, 7, 12, 14, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Romanowich et al. (US-20070039030-A1 hereafter Romanowich), in view of Kucharyson et al. (US-7843336-B2 hereafter Kucharyson), in further view of Bar-Nahum et al. (US-20200162489-A1 hereafter Bar-Nahum).
Regarding claim 5 Romanowich in view of Kucharyson disclose the method of claim 1, Romanowich in view of Kucharyson appears to be silence however, Nahum teaches wherein the potential security threat is identified using at least one of: artificial intelligence, statistical analysis, and/or trained modeling. (see Bar- Nahum par.0024 “security event detection system may use the additional information detected by at least one of the selected sensors to determine a risk level assessment associated with the detected security event. The security event detection system may include a machine learning model. A feature vector may be applied to the machine learning model. The feature vector may be comprised of a plurality of elements. Each element may correspond to a feature associated with a security event. A feature value may be based directly or indirectly on the additional information obtained by the one or more selected sensors. In response to the feature vector being applied to the machine learning model, the machine learning model may be configured to output a value that indicates a threat level associated with the detected security event. The one or more feature values may be applied to one or more risk assessment rules. An output of a risk assessment rule may indicate whether a detected security event is a security risk.”.).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Romanowich in view of in view of Kucharyson teaching of claim 1, with Bar-Nahum teaching “Risk assessment module 105 may be comprised of one or more machine learning models. The one or more machine learning models may be trained to output a value that indicates a threat level associated with the security event. For example, the one or more machine learning models may be configured to output a low security risk in the event the output of the one or more machine learning models is less than a first threshold value. The one or more machine learning models may be configured to output a medium security risk in the event the output of the one or more machine learning models is greater than or equal to a first threshold value and less than a second threshold value. The one or more machine learning models may be configured to output a high security risk in the event the output of the one or more machine learning models is greater than a second threshold value.”, (see Bar-Nahum par.0039).
Regarding claim 12 is the system claim corresponding to the method claim 5 respectively, and rejected under the same rational set forth in connection with the rejection of claim 5.
Regarding claim 19 is the computer-readable media claim corresponding to the method claim 5 respectively, and rejected under the same rational set forth in connection with the rejection of claim 5.
Regarding claim 7 Romanowich in view of Kucharyson disclose the method of claim 1, Romanowich in view of Kucharyson appears to be silence however, Nahum teaches wherein the first security sensor includes artificial intelligence logic configured to implement one or more artificial intelligence methods. (See Bar- Nahum par.0067 “In various embodiments, artificial intelligence and machine learning methods may be used to identify and track UAVs and assess threat levels. Threat level can be classified in numerical terms. For example, a threat level score from zero to five (e.g., higher score corresponds to greater threat risk) generated from a probabilistic prediction of threat level incorporating the data received from sensors in steps 202, 206 can be assigned to each UAV.”, par.0057: “The first layer of sensors is comprised of a first plurality of sensors. At least one of the sensors included in The first layer of sensors is comprised of a first plurality of sensors. At least one of the sensors included in the first layer of sensors may provide the indication of the detected security event to the security event detection system.”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Romanowich in view of in view of Kucharyson teaching of claim 1, with Bar-Nahum teaching “In addition, the user interface includes a component that allows a human to override threat level assessments that were determined automatically. For example, threat level assessments can be downgraded by a user using the interface if the user manually determines an identified object is not a suspicious UAV or is not a UAV (e.g., is a
bird). Similarly, a user can upgrade a threat level assessment. User responses to threat level assessments can be stored by the user interface and used to train artificial intelligence/machine learning methods with respect to future threat level assessments. For example, when a user downgrades threat level assessments associated with certain trajectories, a system that automatically assesses threat level can consider the downgrades when making future threat level assessments. Thus, threat level scores are informed by input from users combined with artificial intelligence assessments and
any particular algorithmic rules that are incorporated (e.g., automatic threat level assessments if certain location and trajectory characteristics associated with a UAV are
detected.”), (see Bar-Nahum par.0068).
Regarding claim 14 is the system claim corresponding to the method claim 7 respectively, and rejected under the same rational set forth in connection with the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 20 is the computer-readable media claim corresponding to the method claim 7 respectively, and rejected under the same rational set forth in connection with the rejection of claim 7.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Romanowich et al. (US-20070039030-A1 hereafter Romanowich), in view of Kucharyson et al. (US-7843336-B2 hereafter Kucharyson), in further view of Afrouzi et al. (US-20210089040-A1 hereafter Afrouzi).
Regarding claim 23 Romanowich in view of Kucharyson disclose the method of claim 21, Kucharyson further teaches wherein receiving the information comprises receiving, by the first security sensor, the information identifying the current battery level of each of the one or more security sensors (see Kucharyson Col.5 lines 48-67: “This description uses the sensor 116 for illustrative purposes, although it will be understood that some or all of the actions 400 may be performed by any of the sensors 114-132 in the wireless security sensor system 100… The sensor 116 may obtain and analyze sensor data at step 402 for specified conditions indicating a threat. If the analysis does not indicate a possible threat in step 406, the sensor 116 may return to step 402 to obtain and analyze further sensor data. If a possible threat is indicated in step 406, the sensor 116 may consult a geographical map of the environment it is sensing to determine a geographical direction of the possible threat and identify a second sensor (for example, the sensor 114) that is nearest to the sensor 116 in that direction. Having identified the sensor 114, the sensor 116 may then send a wireless message to the sensor 114 using the ACP protocol, requesting that the sensor 114 verify the possible threat at step 408.”); and
Romanowich in view of Kucharyson appear to be silence however Afrouzi teaches wherein selecting the second security sensor comprises selecting, by the first security sensor, the second security sensor from the one or more security sensors, responsive to the first security sensor determining, based on the current battery level of the second security sensor, that the second security sensor is capable of continuing the tracking of the potential security threat. (see par.0671: “the robot may collaborate with the other intelligent devices within the environment. In some embodiments, data acquired by other intelligent devices may be shared with the robot and vice versa… The robot may obtain the information and devise a path to perform the requested task. In some embodiments, the robot may collaborate with one or more other robot to complete a task…In some embodiments, the processors of collaborating robots may share information and devise a plan for completing the task. In some embodiments, the processors of robots collaborate by exchanging intelligence with one other, the information relating to, for example, current and upcoming tasks, completion or progress of tasks (particularly in cases where a task is shared), delegation of duties, preferences of a user, environmental conditions (e.g., road conditions, traffic conditions, weather conditions, obstacle density, debris accumulation, etc.), battery power, maps of the environment, and the like… In another example, a processor of a robot (first sensor) unable to complete garbage pickup of an area due to low battery level communicates with a processor of another nearby robot (second sensor) capable of performing garbage pickup, providing the robot with current progress of the task and a map of the area such that it may complete the task.”)
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Romanowich in view of in view of Kucharyson teaching of claim 21, with Afrouzi teaching “the processor of a robot or the control system of the fleet of robots may organize or determine robot tasks and/or robot routes (e.g., for delivering a pod or another item from a current location to a final location) such that charging stations achieve maximum throughput and the number of charged robots at any given time is maximized.”, (see Afrouzi par.00278).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure:
Metzler et al. (US-12254752-B2) The system comprises at least a first surveillance sensor, for example as part of the robot, designed to acquire first surveillance data of at least one object of the property, for example such objects as rooms, doors, The first surveillance sensor preferably is a sensor capable of measuring a large area resp. large space. It is preferably embodied as a contactless sensor and comprises for example at least one or more camera (photo and/or video, visible and/or other parts of the electromagnetic spectrum) and/or microphone and/or RIM-camera and/or laser scanner and/or LIDAR and/or RADAR and/or motion detector and/or radiometer. As an option, the triggered action comprises acquisition of second surveying data of the object by the robot. The second surveying data is optionally acquired by a second surveying sensor of the robot, preferably wherein the first and the second survey sensors are sensors of different sort, for example the first sensor being passive and the second one active or the first sensor being an optic sensor and the second one a haptic sensor. As a further option, the first survey sensor is adapted for rough (and quick) overview surveillance and the second one for fine, detailed surveillance. the computing unit is configured to determine with which of the first and at least one second sensor the second surveillance data is to be acquired such that the second surveillance is optimized with respect to generation of event verification information.
Demetriades et al. (US-10204520-B2) capturing, through one or more sensor(s) communicatively coupled to the unmanned aerial vehicle and a server through a computer network, data related to an environment of a specific location covered by the one or more sensor(s), detecting, through a processor associated with the one or more sensor(s) and/or the server, a security breach and/or a security threat at the specific location based on analyzing the captured data, and automatically activating, through the one or more sensor(s) or the server, the flight plan of the one or more flight plan(s) on the unmanned aerial vehicle in response to the detection of the security breach and/or the security threat at the specific location. Each drone 202.sub.1-3 may be communicatively coupled to the corresponding each surveillance sensor 220.sub.1-3 through computer network 250. For example, each surveillance sensor 220.sub.1-3 may communicate with the corresponding each drone 202.sub.1-3 based on WiFi® or Bluetooth® protocols; each of the aforementioned surveillance sensors 220.sub.1-3 and/or drones 202.sub.1-3 may also communicate with server 230 based on the aforementioned protocols. In certain embodiments, each surveillance sensor 220.sub.1-3 may be communicatively coupled to all drones 202.sub.1-3.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUILIO MUNGUIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5277. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30AM - 5:00PM.
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, Eleni A. Shiferaw can be reached at (571) 272-3867. 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.
/DUILIO MUNGUIA/Examiner, Art Unit 2497 /ALI H. CHEEMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2497