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, 5, 7, 8, 11, 15-17, and 19-23. Applicant previously canceled claims 3, 9, and 12-14.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
The previous objection to the specification is withdrawn in consideration of the amended abstract.
The previous objection to claim 1 is withdrawn in consideration of amended claim 1.
The previous interpretations of claim limitations under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) are maintained. Even as amended, the claim recitations meet the requirements of three-prong test as indicated below.
The previous rejections of claims 1, 2, 5-8, 11, 16-18, and 20-23 under 35 U.S.C. 102 are withdrawn. However, new rejections under § 102 are set forth below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 15, 20, and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “and move”, but should recite – and moves –.
Claim 15 recites “and move”, but should recite – and moveable –.
Claim 20 recites “is detects”, but should recite – detects –.
Claim 21 recites “and map surveillance route”, but should recite – and maps a surveillance route –.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 16-21, and 23 are 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.
Regarding claim 1, the only positively recited claim element of the “mobile control unit” is the “central monitoring system”. Claim 1 also recites “wherein the mobile control unit moves to one of the plurality of premises when alerted by the facility system of the one of the plurality of premises when an alarm signal is received”, but this appears to be merely an intended use as the claim does not recite any particular structure or configuration for providing the movement. Claim 1 further recites “wherein the mobile control unit hosts a mobile module dispatched from the mobile control unit and moves to one of the plurality of premises”. Applicant amended this wherein clause to replace “comprises a mobile module” to “hosts a mobile module”. As amended, it is not clear if the mobile module is a component of the mobile control unit or if hosting the mobile module is merely an intended use/application of the control unit. Therefore, claim 1 is indefinite. Claims 2, 4-7, 16-21, and 23 are also indefinite under §112(b) because they depend from claim 1.
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 premises 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 moves to one of the plurality of premises when alerted by the facility system of the one of the plurality of premises when an alarm signal is received (robot 100 may be deployed to investigate – see at least ¶ [0155]), wherein the mobile control unit hosts a mobile module dispatched from the mobile control unit and [moves] 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 premises (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 premises and the building services system comprises a building services mobile module monitoring the building services in the premise (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 premises and the building services system comprises a building services mobile module monitoring the building services in the 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]; 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 premises (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 premises (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 the plurality of premises, 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 moves to one of the plurality of premises when alerted by the facility system of the one of the plurality of premises when an alarm signal is received, wherein the mobile control unit comprises a mobile module dispatched 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 automatically monitors and moves toward the premises (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 premises 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 premises (robot 100 can detect smoke – see at least ¶ [0153], [0205]).
Regarding claim 20, Deyle further teaches:
wherein the mobile module [ ] detects motion within the premises (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 premises (scanners 726 scans objects, obstacles, paths, individuals within proximity of the robot – see at least ¶ [0105]) and [maps a] surveillance route within the premises (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 premises 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 premises and the building services system comprises a building services mobile module monitoring the building services in the premises (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]).
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights