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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 2, 4-8, 11, and 15-23 of US Application No. 18/512,004 are currently pending and have been examined. Applicant amended claims 1, 7, 8, 11,15-17, and 19-23 and canceled claims. Applicant previously canceled claims 3, 9, 10, and 12-14.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
The previous objection to claims 1, 15, 20, and 21 are withdrawn in consideration of the amended abstract.
The previous rejections of claims 1, 2, 4-8, 11, and 15-23 under § 112(b) are withdrawn in consideration of amended independent claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections of claims 1, 2, 4-7, 15-21 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The previous rejections are maintained.
Applicant first argues that Deyle does not disclose “[a] mobile control unit configured to move to a plurality of buildings located at different locations geographically spaced apart from each other”. In support of this argument, Applicant asserts that the robot of Deyle is only able to move within a building.
Deyle, however, clearly discloses that the robot can be deployed within a building, outside, or any other suitable location. See ¶ [0042], [0124]. Further, the robot may patrol along a pre-selected patrol route. See ¶ [0124]. As the robot may be deployed in an outside area and may also patrol within buildings, the robot is configured to move between outdoor structures, such as buildings. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant then argues that Deyle does not disclose “a central monitoring system communicating with at least one of a facility system of each of the plurality of buildings and monitoring the at least one facility system to receive an alarm signal from the at least one facility system”. In support of this argument, Applicant characterizes Deyle as disclosing a central system that is separate from the robot and communicates with the robot via a network. However, the claim does not require any particular location of the central monitoring system, e.g., on-board or off-board the mobile control unit. In this regard, Deyle discloses a central system 210 having an infrastructure interface 316 and robot interface 314 that enable the central system to interact with infrastructure systems and the robot via communication interface 310. See Fig. 3 and ¶ [0054]-[0056]. Sensors 420 of infrastructure system can provide information from the sensors to the central system 210 via network 200. See ¶ [0072]. Therefore, Deyle teaches a central monitoring system communicating with at least one of a facility system of each of the plurality of buildings (i.e., central system 210 in communication with infrastructure system 220 via network 200) and monitoring the at least one facility system to receive an alarm signal from the at least one facility system (i.e., sensors of infrastructure system provide sensor information to central system 210). This teaching of Deyle correlates with an off-board central monitoring system. Even further, Deyle discloses that tasks performed by the central monitoring system may instead be performed by other components of the embodiment of Fig. 2 by systems configured to directly communicatively couple with each other, such as the robot and a security camera system (¶ [0180]) and that robot 100 may interact with hardware systems of a building, such as an alarm system, fire alarm, or any other connected object or system within the building, while patrolling (¶ [0146]-[0147]). For example, the robot 100 can perform a security operation in response to a security operation performed by a hardware system of a building. For instance, as disclosed in ¶ [0155], “if a security camera detects a suspicious individual, the security camera can deploy a mobile robot to approach or follow the individual, to request the user's credentials, or to warn the individual. Likewise, if an audio system detects a suspicious noise, if a connected door detects that an individual attempted to open the door, or if a connected badge reader scans a badge for an individual that is not authorized to access a location associated with the badge reader, a robot can be deployed to perform one or more security operations associated with the security operation performed by the hardware system. It should be noted that a robot and a hardware system can perform security operations as described herein autonomously or without the explicit instructions or involvement of a human (such as a security personnel 250 or an operator of the robot), beneficially reducing the amount of human interaction required to perform the security operations.” Therefore, Deyle teaches a central monitoring system communicating with at least one of a facility system of each of the plurality of buildings (i.e., robot and building infrastructure system in direct communication performing tasks of central system 210) and monitoring the at least one facility system to receive an alarm signal from the at least one facility system (i.e., alert from security camera system or audio system to investigate). This teaching of Deyle correlates with an on-board central monitoring system. In short, Deyle teaches the claim limitations regardless of whether the central monitoring system is interpreted as being located on-board or off-board of the mobile control unit. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant then argues that Deyle does not disclose “wherein the mobile control unit comprises and hosts a mobile module dispatchable from the mobile control unit and moveable to one of the plurality of buildings”. In support of this argument, Applicant asserts that the aerial vehicle of Deyle is coordinated by the robot but is not hosted by the robot. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Deyle clearly discloses the robot can launch an aerial vehicle from the robot or from an aerial vehicle launch pad or charge station and the aerial vehicle can return to the point of origin, e.g., the robot, the launch pad, or the charging station. See ¶ [0165]. The location, movement, and flight of the aerial vehicles may be manually controlled. See ¶ [0164]. The aerial vehicles may be controlled by the robot. See ¶ [0165]. Therefore, Deyle teaches wherein the mobile control unit comprises and hosts a mobile module dispatchable from the mobile control unit (i.e., aerial vehicle can be launched from, and return to, the robot) and moveable to one of the plurality of buildings (i.e., aerial vehicles location and movement may be controlled manually or via the robot). Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant, in summary, states that “Deyle teaches a centrally monitoring central system rather than the robot that receives input from systems, e.g. infrastructure system, security system, mobile robots, etc., from a plurality of infrastructure and security systems in a plurality of buildings. While Deyle implies that the robot may communicate directly with the systems, the robot only communicates directly with the building it is in and not with another building. Hence, Deyle teaches using the robot to monitor the building instead of a plurality of buildings so as to provide a fast response to any alarm received.” As indicated above, the robot of Deyle is not limited to being inside of a building but may be deployed within a building, outside, or any other suitable location. See ¶ [0042], [0124]. Further, the robot of Deyle is not limited to communication with the communication infrastructure of a single building. The infrastructure systems in communication with the robot may include one or more components of a building or environment in which the robot is located. See ¶ [0047]. The network via which the robot and infrastructure systems communicate is not limited to a building-specific network. Rather, the network may be the Internet, a local area network (such as a building-wide or site-wide network), a wireless network, a mesh network, or any other network or combination thereof that allows communication between the components of FIG. 2 and may use standard communications technologies and/or protocols, such as WiFi, Bluetooth, LTE, cellular networks, and the like. See ¶ [0051]. In short, communication between the robot and infrastructure systems may be between infrastructure from any building in the robot’s environment that is connected to the communication network.
Based on all of the above, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The previous rejections of claims 1, 2, 4-7, 15-21 and 23 under § 102 are maintained.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “central monitoring system communicating with . . . and monitoring”, “mobile module dispatched from” in claim 1; “security monitoring system monitoring” (claim 5); “facility system monitoring”, “security mobile module monitoring”, “building services mobile module monitoring” (claim 8); “security mobile module monitoring”, “building services mobile module monitoring (claim 11); “main control unit monitoring . . . communicating with”, “central monitoring system communicating with a facility system”, “mobile control unit moving” (claim 15); “security mobile module monitoring”, “building services mobile module monitoring” (claim 23).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites “wherein the mobile control unit comprises a vehicular unit”. Claim 2 depends from claim 1, which recites “wherein the mobile control unit comprises a moveable structure that is configured to move to one of the plurality of premises”. It is not clear if the vehicular unit of claim 2 is equivalent to the moveable structure of claim 1, or if the vehicle unit and moveable structure are distinct.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-8, 11, and 15-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Deyle et al. (US 2021/0048829 A1, “Deyle”).
Regarding claim 1, Deyle discloses surveillance prevention by a mobile robot and teaches:
a central monitoring system communicating with at least one of a facility system of each of the plurality of buildings and monitoring the at least one facility system to receive an alarm signal from the at least one facility system (robot 100 may perform a security patrol – see at least ¶ [0124]; robot 100 may interact with hardware systems of a building while patrolling – see at least ¶ [0147]; the robot 100 can perform a security operation in response to a security operation performed by a hardware system of a building. For instance, if a security camera detects a suspicious individual, the security camera can deploy a mobile robot to approach or follow the individual, to request the user's credentials, or to warn the individual. Likewise, if an audio system detects a suspicious noise, if a connected door detects that an individual attempted to open the door, or if a connected badge reader scans a badge for an individual that is not authorized to access a location associated with the badge reader, a robot can be deployed to perform one or more security operations associated with the security operation performed by the hardware system. It should be noted that a robot and a hardware system can perform security operations as described herein autonomously or without the explicit instructions or involvement of a human (such as a security personnel 250 or an operator of the robot), beneficially reducing the amount of human interaction required to perform the security operations – see at least ¶ [0155]),
wherein the mobile control unit comprises a moveable structure that is configured to move to one of the plurality of buildings when alerted by the facility system of the one of the plurality of buildings when an alarm signal is received (robot 100 may be deployed to investigate – see at least ¶ [0155]), wherein the mobile control unit comprises and hosts a mobile module dispatchable from the mobile control unit and moveable to one of the plurality of premises (aerial vehicles can be launched and controlled by robot 100 – see at least ¶ [0165]; point of origin of UAVs may be robot 100 – see at least ¶ [0165]).
Regarding claim 2, Deyle further teaches:
wherein the mobile control unit comprises a vehicular unit (robot 100 may include a motor or engine and wheels or rollers such that the vehicle may move – see at least ¶ [0095]; robot may be a point of origin for UAVs – see at least ¶ [0165]).
Regarding claim 4, Deyle further teaches:
wherein the mobile control unit comprises a Global Positioning System device adapted to determine the location of the mobile control unit (robot 100 may include GPS receivers – see at least ¶ [0118]).
Regarding claim 5, Deyle further teaches:
wherein the central monitoring system comprises a security monitoring system monitoring at least one of a security system of the facility system or a building services monitoring system monitoring the building services systems of the facility system (security system 230 and infrastructure system 220 – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0067], [0076]; robot 100 may interact with hardware systems of a building while patrolling – see at least ¶ [0147]; hardware systems may include a camera array – see at least ¶ [0145]; hardware system may include an alarm system, connected doors and windows, access gates, connected locks, security gates, computer systems, network systems or components, fire alarms, elevators, or any other connected object or system within a building or location – see at least ¶ [0147]).
Regarding claim 6, Deyle further teaches;
wherein communication between the central monitoring system and facility system is via at least one of a wide area network or a wireless local area network (network 200 may be a local area network, wireless network, or any other network or combination that allows communication between the components of Fig. 2 – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0051]; security system 230 and infrastructure system 220 may communicate with robot 100 via network 200 – see at least ¶ [0076], [0079]).
Regarding claim 7, Deyle further teaches:
wherein the mobile control unit patrols at least one of the plurality of premises (navigation system 780 moves the robot as part of a patrol – see at least ¶ [0096]; [0124]).
Regarding claim 8, Deyle discloses surveillance prevention by a mobile robot and teaches:
a mobile control unit (robot 100 – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0044]); and
a plurality of facility systems each facility system monitoring one of the plurality of buildings (environment may include one or more buildings – see at least ¶ [0045]; security system 230 and infrastructure system 220 – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0067], [0076]; robot 100 may interact with hardware systems of a building while patrolling – see at least ¶ [0147]; hardware systems may include a camera array – see at least ¶ [0145]; hardware system may include an alarm system, connected doors and windows, access gates, connected locks, security gates, computer systems, network systems or components, fire alarms, elevators, or any other connected object or system within a building or location – see at least ¶ [0147]), wherein each of the facility system comprises: at least one of a security system and a building services system (security system 230 and infrastructure system 220 – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0067], [0076]), wherein the security system comprises a security mobile module monitoring the buildings and the building services system comprises a building services mobile module monitoring the building services in the building (aerial vehicles can be launched and controlled by robot 100 – see at least ¶ [0165]; point of origin of UAVs may be robot 100 – see at least ¶ [0165]; functionalities of robot 100 may equally apply to UAVs – see at least ¶ [0160]; robot 100 may interact with hardware systems of a building while patrolling – see at least ¶ [0147]; the robot 100 can perform a security operation in response to a security operation performed by a hardware system of a building. For instance, if a security camera detects a suspicious individual, the security camera can deploy a mobile robot to approach or follow the individual, to request the user's credentials, or to warn the individual. Likewise, if an audio system detects a suspicious noise, if a connected door detects that an individual attempted to open the door, or if a connected badge reader scans a badge for an individual that is not authorized to access a location associated with the badge reader, a robot can be deployed to perform one or more security operations associated with the security operation performed by the hardware system. It should be noted that a robot and a hardware system can perform security operations as described herein autonomously or without the explicit instructions or involvement of a human (such as a security personnel 250 or an operator of the robot), beneficially reducing the amount of human interaction required to perform the security operations – see at least ¶ [0155]).
Regarding claim 11, Deyle discloses surveillance prevention by a mobile robot and teaches:
monitoring at least one of the facility systems, wherein each of the facility system comprising at least one of a security system and a building services system, wherein the security system comprises a security mobile module monitoring the buildings and the building services system comprises a building services mobile module monitoring the building services in the buildings (aerial vehicles can be launched and controlled by robot 100 – see at least ¶ [0165]; point of origin of UAVs may be robot 100 – see at least ¶ [0165]; functionalities of robot 100 may equally apply to UAVs – see at least ¶ [0160]; robot 100 may interact with hardware systems of a building while patrolling – see at least ¶ [0147]; the robot 100 can perform a security operation in response to a security operation performed by a hardware system of a building. For instance, if a security camera detects a suspicious individual, the security camera can deploy a mobile robot to approach or follow the individual, to request the user's credentials, or to warn the individual. Likewise, if an audio system detects a suspicious noise, if a connected door detects that an individual attempted to open the door, or if a connected badge reader scans a badge for an individual that is not authorized to access a location associated with the badge reader, a robot can be deployed to perform one or more security operations associated with the security operation performed by the hardware system. It should be noted that a robot and a hardware system can perform security operations as described herein autonomously or without the explicit instructions or involvement of a human (such as a security personnel 250 or an operator of the robot), beneficially reducing the amount of human interaction required to perform the security operations – see at least ¶ [0155]);
communicating between the central monitoring system of the mobile control unit and at least one of the facility systems of the plurality of buildings (robot 100 may perform a security patrol – see at least ¶ [0124]; robot 100 may interact with hardware systems of a building while patrolling – see at least ¶ [0147]; t robot 100 may interact with hardware systems of a building while patrolling – see at least ¶ [0147]; the robot 100 can perform a security operation in response to a security operation performed by a hardware system of a building. For instance, if a security camera detects a suspicious individual, the security camera can deploy a mobile robot to approach or follow the individual, to request the user's credentials, or to warn the individual. Likewise, if an audio system detects a suspicious noise, if a connected door detects that an individual attempted to open the door, or if a connected badge reader scans a badge for an individual that is not authorized to access a location associated with the badge reader, a robot can be deployed to perform one or more security operations associated with the security operation performed by the hardware system. It should be noted that a robot and a hardware system can perform security operations as described herein autonomously or without the explicit instructions or involvement of a human (such as a security personnel 250 or an operator of the robot), beneficially reducing the amount of human interaction required to perform the security operations – see at least ¶ [0155]); and
moving the mobile control unit to the premise of the one of the facility systems when alerted by the one of the facility systems of the one of the plurality of buildings (robot can be deployed to perform one or more security operations associated with the security operation performed by the hardware system – see at least ¶ [0155]).
Regarding claim 15, Deyle discloses surveillance prevention by a mobile robot and teaches:
a plurality of mobile control units (one or more robots 100 – see at least ¶ [0044]);
a main control unit monitoring the location of the plurality of mobile control units, the main control unit communicating with the plurality of mobile control units and controlling the plurality of mobile control units (security interface couples with robot, e.g., via central system 210 – see at least Fig. 16 and ¶ [0200]; a user of the security interface may instruct robot 100 to perform a security operation – see at least ¶ [0200]; security interface is displayed to include a location of robot 100 – see at least ¶ [0200]; security interface can display updated location of robot 100 – see at least ¶ [0020]),
wherein each of the mobile control units comprising a central monitoring system communicating with a facility system of each of a plurality of buildings located at different locations geographically spaced apart from each other, the central monitoring system monitoring at least one of the facility systems to receive an alarm signal from the facility system, and wherein the mobile control unit is configured to move to one of the plurality of buildings when alerted by the facility system of the one of the plurality of buildings when an alarm signal is received, wherein the mobile control unit comprises and hosts a mobile module dispatchable from the mobile control unit and moveable to one of the plurality of premises (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 16, Deyle further teaches:
wherein the mobile module is autonomous (aerial systems include one or more unmanned aerial vehicles – see at least ¶ [0082]),
wherein the mobile module is automatically monitors and moves toward the buildings (aerial vehicle launched from robot 100 may scan the area – see at least ¶ [0165]; UAVs may perform security operations, such as recording video – see at least ¶ [0161]; UAVs may scan/patrol hard-to-reach areas – see at least ¶ [0160]).
Regarding claim 17, Deyle further teaches:
wherein the mobile module comprises an image capturing device capturing images and/or video within the buildings to be transmitted to the mobile control unit (UAV may include camera or camera array – see at least ¶ [0160]; UAV may record video – see at least ¶ [0161]).
Regarding claim 18, Deyle further teaches:
wherein the mobile module comprises an alarm device configured to emit a siren (UAV may include speakers – see at least ¶ [0160]; robot may sound an alarm – see at least ¶ [0121], [0153]; functionalities of robot 100 may equally apply to UAVs – see at least ¶ [0160]).
Regarding claim 19, Deyle further teaches:
wherein the mobile module comprises a smoke detection device detecting smoke within the buildings (robot 100 can detect smoke – see at least ¶ [0153], [0205]).
Regarding claim 20, Deyle further teaches:
wherein the mobile module detects motion within the buildings (scanners 7826 may follow movement of suspicious individuals – see at least ¶ [0105]; robot can detect motion and determine if individual is walking or running based on detected movements – see at least ¶ [0135], [0136]).
Regarding claim 21, Deyle further teaches:
wherein the mobile module scans the buildings (scanners 726 scans objects, obstacles, paths, individuals within proximity of the robot – see at least ¶ [0105]) and maps a surveillance route within the buildings (robot 100 may generate maps as they patrol an area – see at least ¶ [0126]; functionalities of robot 100 may equally apply to UAVs – see at least ¶ [0160]).
Regarding claim 22, Deyle further teaches:
wherein the mobile module navigates autonomously within the buildings based on the surveillance route (UAVs may scan/patrol hard-to-reach areas – see at least ¶ [0160]; route or path through buildings or floors for one or more robots 100 to patrol – see at least ¶ [0057]).
Regarding claim 23, Deyle further teaches:
the facility system, wherein the facility system comprises at least one of a security system and a building services system, wherein the security system comprises a security mobile module monitoring the buildings and the building services system comprises a building services mobile module monitoring the building services in the buildings (aerial vehicles can be launched and controlled by robot 100 – see at least ¶ [0165]; UAVs may patrol the area – see at least ¶ [0160]; functionalities of robot 100 may equally apply to UAVs – see at least ¶ [0160]; robot 100 may interact with hardware systems of a building while patrolling – see at least ¶ [0147]; the robot 100 can perform a security operation in response to a security operation performed by a hardware system of a building. For instance, if a security camera detects a suspicious individual, the security camera can deploy a mobile robot to approach or follow the individual, to request the user's credentials, or to warn the individual. Likewise, if an audio system detects a suspicious noise, if a connected door detects that an individual attempted to open the door, or if a connected badge reader scans a badge for an individual that is not authorized to access a location associated with the badge reader, a robot can be deployed to perform one or more security operations associated with the security operation performed by the hardware system. It should be noted that a robot and a hardware system can perform security operations as described herein autonomously or without the explicit instructions or involvement of a human (such as a security personnel 250 or an operator of the robot), beneficially reducing the amount of human interaction required to perform the security operations – see at least ¶ [0155]).
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, 4-8, 11, and 15-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deyle in view of Salter et al. (US 2023/0343101 A1, “Salter”).
While the Examiner maintains that Deyle teaches a mobile control unit configured to move to a plurality of buildings located at different locations geographically spaced apart from each other, as indicated in the Response to Arguments/Amendments and Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 above, the Examiner further rejects claims 1, 2, 4-8, 11, and 15-23 under § 103 in an effort to provide compact prosecution.
In this regard, Salter discloses systems and methods for providing a vehicle-and-drone-based security service and teaches:
a mobile control unit configured to move to a plurality of buildings located at different locations geographically spaced apart from each other (vehicle 5 applied to a neighborhood and/or designated patrol area, instead of a single property – see at least Fig. 4 and ¶ [0030]; e.g., monitor an area of interest having six houses – see at least ¶ [0030]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mobile surveillance robot of Deyle to move to a plurality of buildings located at different locations spaced apart from each other, as taught by Salter, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would allow different property owners to pool their resources to provide security services at reduced cost/energy consumption (Salter at ¶ [0001]).
Conclusion
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 AARON L TROOST whose telephone number is (571)270-5779. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am-4pm.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at 313-446-6519. 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.
/AARON L TROOST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
