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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 4/21/2026, with respect to claim 10, rejection under 35 U.S.C 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of said claim has been withdrawn.
Applicant arguments with respect to rejection of claims 4-6 and 17, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of said claims has been withdrawn and are indicated as allowable over the prior art of the record.
Applicant's arguments, with respect to independent claims 1 and 14, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claims 1 and 14, Applicant argues that “Applicant respectfully submits that these passages do not disclose the limitations as recited. First, claim 1 requires "determin[ing] a first threshold duration based at least in part on the one or more criteria that correspond to the entity." The Office Action equates the determination at block B802 that "a security event is occurring" (based on image data, motion data, and/or sensor data) with the claimed "first threshold duration," stating that "occurrence of [the] security event corresponds to [the] first threshold duration." However, Palmer's determination that a security event is occurring is a binary event determination, not a determination of any duration, and certainly not a determination of a "threshold duration" based on criteria corresponding to the entity. Block B802 describes evaluating sensor data to decide that a security event is occurring; it does not describe computing or selecting a time interval that serves as a threshold duration tied to any entity-based criteria. Thus, Palmer does not disclose the claimed step of determining a first threshold duration based at least in part on criteria corresponding to the entity.” (please see Remarks, page 8, last paragraph and page 9, first paragraph).
Examiner respectfully disagrees, First of all, as previously pointed out by the Examiner that Palmer, Column 15, lines 30-33, discloses the security system may include and/or utilize A/V devices 124 and/or automation devices 116 for detecting a security event, e.g., a detected presence of an entity (intruder) on the premises. Here, a security event (claimed first threshold duration) is detected based on criteria that corresponds to entity i.e., intruder. Please note Palmer reference describes the security event detection based on certain criteria in this case criteria of entity is intruder for instance if Palmer security system detects any known person on the premises then it would not declare a security event detection. Secondly, In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “computing or selecting a time interval that serves as a threshold duration tied to any entity-based criteria” (please see Remarks, page 9, first paragraph)) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant further argues that “Second, claim 1 separately recites "determin[ing] that the entity corresponds to one or more criteria" and then determining the first threshold duration "based at least in part on the one or more criteria that correspond to the entity." In the present application, the "criteria" correspond to characteristics of the entity such as behavior, distance to a location or object, direction of travel, or velocity, which are then used to customize the threshold duration for deterrence actions. By contrast, the Office Action relies on Palmer col. 15, II. 30-33 as allegedly disclosing both detection of an entity and "criteria," but that passage merely refers to detecting a security event such as "a detected presence of an entity (intruder) on the premises." It does not disclose determining that the entity corresponds to any particular criteria as claimed, nor does it disclose using such criteria to determine the first threshold duration. Palmer therefore fails to teach the claimed relationship between entity-specific criteria and the determination of the first threshold duration.” (please see Remarks, page 9).
Examiner respectfully disagrees, First of all, In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “the "criteria" correspond to characteristics of the entity such as behavior, distance to a location or object, direction of travel, or velocity, which are then used to customize the threshold duration for deterrence actions”, please see Remarks, page 9) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Secondly, as Palmer discloses in Column 11, lines 7-8, and Column 15, lines 30-33, detected security event, e.g., detected motion on or near the property indicating the presence of a potential intruder i.e., claimed criteria corresponds to intruder and threshold duration corresponds to security event of Palmer. Since pending claims does not requires that there are multiple criteria’s and each criteria corresponds to different threshold duration, therefore Palmer reference reads on the argued limitation as presented by the Applicant.
Applicant further argues that “Third, claim 1 requires "determin[ing] a duration the entity remains in the first zone after detection by the one or more sensor devices." The Examiner cites Palmer col. 5, II. 41-53 and col. 11, II. 17-22, which describe, inter alia, that "a range of five to fifteen seconds" may be used to determine whether a security event is still detected. These passages, however, describe a delay or persistence check for a security event, not a determination of how long a particular entity remains within a defined first zone after detection. Palmer's "range of five to fifteen seconds" is used to confirm that a security event persists before further action is taken; it is not presented as a measured dwell time of an entity in a zone, and there is no disclosure of computing or tracking a duration specific to an entity's presence within a first zone, as recited in claim 1 (and as similarly recited in claim 14)” (please see Remarks, page 9, last paragraph).
Examiner respectfully disagrees, as Palmer, Column 5, lines 41-53, and Column 11, lines 17-22, discloses a range of five to fifteen seconds, the security event is still detected and further Palmer throughout the disclosure discloses that the security event is continuously monitored nowhere examiner finds that Palmer discloses that a delay or persistence check for a security event as alleged by the Applicant. Therefore, Palmer reads on the limitation as presented by the Applicant.
Applicant further argues that “Fourth, claim 1 recites "execut[ing] a deterrence action based on the duration and the first threshold duration." Because Palmer does not disclose determining a first threshold duration as claimed or determining the entity's dwell-time duration in the first zone as claimed, Palmer necessarily cannot disclose executing a deterrence action "based on the duration and the first threshold duration" in the claimed sense. The Examiner relies on Fig. 8, block B804 and col. 49, II. 4-13 of Palmer, which describe selecting a deterrent protocol in response to a security event. That disclosure describes taking action in response to the occurrence or confirmation of a security event, not executing a deterrence action based on a comparison of (i) a measured duration that an entity has remained in a first zone and (ii) a first threshold duration that has been determined based on criteria corresponding to that entity.
For at least these reasons, Palmer does not disclose the combination of limitations recited in claim 1, including the requirement that the first threshold duration be determined based at least in part on criteria corresponding to the entity and that the deterrence action be executed based on both the measured duration and that first threshold duration. Apparatus claim 1 is therefore not anticipated by Palmer” (please see Remarks, page 10).
Examiner respectfully disagrees, Firstly, In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “a comparison of (i) a measured duration that an entity has remained in a first zone and (ii) a first threshold duration that has been determined based on criteria corresponding to that entity” (please see Remarks, page 10)) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Secondly, as Palmer, Column 5, lines 41-53, and Column 11, lines 17-22, discloses a range of five to fifteen seconds (i.e., claimed a duration the entity remains in the first zone after detection), the security event is still detected. Secondly, as previously pointed out by Examiner that Palmer discloses deterrent protocol is implemented after determining the presence of intruder at the premises. Examiner suggests Applicant to further elaborate on deterrence action i.e., deterrence action being different for different detected entity to overcome the cited art. Therefore, in view of above Palmer reference reads on the argued limitations as presented by the Applicant.
Regarding claim 3, Applicant argues that “The Examiner cites Palmer col. 9, 11. 46-67, col. 15, II. 15-18, col. 20, II. 5-10, and col. 40, II. 61-67 and again relies on the five-to-fifteen-second range and the persistence of a security event. These passages describe detecting motion indicative of the presence of a person or persons and confirming that a security event is still detected over a time range. These passages in Palmer do not disclose re-determining a first threshold duration based on additional entities and criteria corresponding to those additional entities, nor do they disclose executing a deterrence action based on the durations that multiple entities have remained in the first zone as explicitly required by claim 3. Accordingly, claim 3 is separately allowable over Palmer for these additional reasons.” (please see Remarks, page 10, last paragraph).
Examiner respectfully disagrees, In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “re-determining a first threshold duration based on additional entities and criteria corresponding to those additional entities”, please see Remarks, page 10, last paragraph) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Examiner suggests Applicant to further elaborate of additional entities in the claim to overcome the cited reference.
Regarding claim 7, Applicant argues that “Claim 7 recites that "the determined one or more criteria that correspond to the entity include a behavior of the entity." The Examiner cites Palmer col. 37, 11. 45-55, which describes biometric identifiers that can include physiological or behavioral characteristics. However, that discussion is generic to biometric identifiers and is not tied to the claimed framework in which the system determines that an entity corresponds to one or more criteria, including a behavior of the entity, and uses those criteria to determine a threshold duration for deterrence. Palmer's cited disclosure does not describe determining or using an entity's behavior as a criterion in the claimed sense. Claim 7 is separately allowable over Palmer for these additional reasons.” (please see Remarks, page 11).
Examiner respectfully disagrees, as Palmer, Column 37, lines 45-55, discloses Biometric identifiers can be physiological characteristics and/or behavioral characteristics and further Palmer discloses detection of intruder (i.e., claimed behavioral characteristics). Hence Palmer reference reads on the argued limitation as presented by the Applicant. Examiner suggests Applicant to further elaborate on behavior of the entity if different from the Palmer to overcome the cited reference.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Applicant argues that “Claim 8 recites that the criteria include "a distance between the entity and a location," and claim 9 further specifies that "the location is the location of one or more of the one or more sensor devices." The Examiner cites Palmer col. 34, II. 23-25, which describes "a distance of the entity from the A/V device 210." Even if this passage could be read to suggest a distance between the entity and the location of a device, Palmer does not disclose using such distance as a criterion corresponding to the entity for determining a first threshold duration for deterrence as claimed. Palmer's discussion of distance is part of generic analytics; it is not tied to the entity-based threshold-duration determination that is central to the present claims” (please see Remarks, page 11).
Examiner respectfully disagrees, as Palmer, Column 34, lines 24-25, discloses a distance of the entity from the A/V device 210 and based on the distance Palmer determines the presence of intruder and determines the deterrence actions based on duration of stay of the intruder on the premises. Therefore Palmer reference reads on the argues limitation as presented by the Applicant.
Regarding claim 11, Applicant argues that “Claim 11 requires that "the one or more criteria that correspond to the entity include a distance between the entity and an object." The Examiner again cites Palmer col. 34, II. 24-25, which refers to a "distance of the entity from the A/V device 210." The A/V device in Palmer is a sensor device, not an "object" as that term is used in the present application, which contemplates objects such as protected assets or structures distinct from the sensing hardware. More importantly, the cited passage does not disclose that such distance is used as a criterion corresponding to the entity in determining a threshold duration for deterrence. Palmer thus does not disclose the limitation added by claim 11.” (please see Remarks, page 11, last paragraph).
Examiner respectfully disagrees, as Palmer, Column 34, lines 24-25, discloses a distance of the entity from the A/V device 210, here A/V device corresponds to claimed object. Examiner suggests Applicant to further elaborate on the object if different from Palmer to overcome the Palmer reference.
Applicant further argues that “Claim 12 requires that the criteria include "a direction of travel of the entity," and claim 13 requires that the criteria include "a velocity of the entity." The Examiner cites Palmer col. 34, II. 22-24 for direction and Fig. 3 at 326 (a motion sensor) for velocity. A reference to a direction of movement and the mere presence of a motion sensor do not amount to a disclosure that the system determines a direction of travel of the entity and a velocity of the entity as criteria corresponding to the entity for use in determining a threshold duration, as recited in the claims. Palmer does not teach that any such direction or velocity is computed as entity-specific criteria or that such criteria are used in the threshold-duration framework at the core of the present disclosure. Accordingly, Palmer does not disclose the limitations added by claims 12 and 13.” (please see Remarks, page 12, first paragraph).
Examiner respectfully disagrees, as Palmer, Column 34, lines 22-24, discloses a motion sensor which detects a direction of movement of the entity (i.e., claimed direction of travel and velocity) and then determines the presence of intruder. Hence, Palmer reference reads on the argued limitation as presented by the Applicant. Examiner suggests Applicant to further elaborate on entity if different from Palmer reference to overcome the reference.
Same arguments are applicable to claims 14, 16, and 18-21.
Regarding 35 U.S.C 103, rejection, Applicant argues that “Claim 2 recites that the processors are further configured to "identify a default duration based at least in part on the first zone, wherein the first threshold duration is less than the identified default duration." The Office Action acknowledges that Palmer does not explicitly disclose this feature and instead cites Siminoff [0131]as allegedly teaching a "set threshold length of time" that is compared to a detected length of time. Even assuming Siminoff teaches selecting a threshold time for a motion zone, this disclosure is not the same as identifying a default duration based at least in part on the first zone and then setting an entity-based first threshold duration that is shorter than that default duration, as recited in claim 2 (please see Remarks, page 13, last paragraph).
Examiner respectfully disagrees, first of all, pending claims requires only a single entity and threshold duration for the single entity and as being explained above that Palmer reference discloses detection of intruder and duration of intruder at the premises. Secondly, as Siminoff, paragraph 131, discloses if a conditional setting of the at least one intrusion zone comprises a length of time that a person/object remains within a motion zone, then the process may compare a length of time that a person/object remains within a motion zone to a set threshold time to determine whether the detected length of time is above or below the set threshold length of time. Therefore Palmer in view of Siminoff reads on the argued limitations as presented by the Applicant. Examiner suggests Applicant to further elaborate on “entity” and/or “zone” if different from the cited references to overcome the cited references.
Applicant further argues with respect to claim 2, “In Applicant's disclosure, the default duration is associated with a zone and serves as a baseline, and the first threshold duration for an entity within that zone is explicitly shorter than the zone-based default to enable earlier deterrence for entities satisfying certain criteria. Siminoff's "set threshold time" is simply the condition applied in a given intrusion/motion zone; there is no teaching of a separate default duration for the zone and a shorter, entity-specific first threshold duration that is derived from or compared to that default. Nor is there any teaching of basing the first threshold duration on criteria corresponding to the entity, as in the present claims. Thus, even if combined with Palmer, Siminoff does not teach or suggest the specific relationship among zone-based default duration, entity-based first threshold duration, and criteria corresponding to the entity that is required by claim 2” (please see Remarks, page 14, first paragraph).
Examiner respectfully disagrees, as Siminoff, paragraph 131, discloses if a conditional setting of the at least one intrusion zone comprises a length of time that a person/object remains within a motion zone, then the process may compare a length of time that a person/object remains within a motion zone (i.e., claimed first threshold duration) to a set threshold time (i.e., claimed default threshold) to determine whether the detected length of time is above or below the set threshold length of time. Therefore Palmer in view of Siminoff reads on the argued limitations as presented by the Applicant. Examiner suggests Applicant to further elaborate on “entity” and/or “zone” if different from the cited references to overcome the cited references.
Regarding claim 10, Applicant argues that “Claim 10 recites that "the location" used in the distance criterion of claim 8 "is within the second zone." The Office Action concedes Palmer does not explicitly disclose this and cites Siminoff (at [0127] and [0131], which describe different locations (e.g., inside the home, front yard, back yard, side of the home) and conditional settings based on where motion is detected. However, Siminoff's discussion of locations within or around a premises does not amount to a disclosure of using "a distance between the entity and a location" where that location is expressly "within the second zone" and using that distance as a criterion corresponding to the entity for determining a second threshold duration as claimed. In the present claims, the location is within the second zone and is used as part of the entity-specific criteria that affect the threshold duration logic. Siminoff treats different regions (inside home, front yard, etc.) as separate intrusion zones with their own conditional settings, but does not teach computing a distance between an entity and a location within a second zone and using that distance as a criterion to set a second threshold duration that interacts with a first threshold duration and a zone-based default as in Applicant's architecture. The combination of Palmer and Siminoff therefore does not render obvious claim 10” (please see Remarks, page 15, last paragraph and page 16, first paragraph).
Examiner respectfully disagrees, as previously cited Palmer discloses detecting presence of intruder at the premises (first zone) and Siminoff, paragraphs 127 and 131, discloses a location where the motion was detected (e.g. if the detected motion was inside the home (or in the front yard, or the back yard, or along the side of the home, etc.), then it may be indicative of a threat)) i.e., claimed second zone. Hence, Palmer in view of Siminoff discloses the argued limitation as presented by the Applicant. Examiner suggests Applicant to further elaborate on zone based default threshold to overcome the cited references. As per claims 15 and 17, arguments please see the Response to arguments of claims 2 and 4, respectively.
Furthermore, with respect to combination of Palmer and Siminoff Applicant argues that “The Examiner's motivation to combine Siminoff with Palmer ("improved security system") is generic and does not address why one of ordinary skill would specifically combine Palmer's fixed-event deterrent with Siminoff's zone conditionals to arrive at the claimed dynamic, criteria-driven threshold determination and escalation scheme. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (hindsight is impermissible; the analysis must be made explicit with rational underpinning). The claimed apparatus (and method) provides a technical improvement in security by reducing false positives and enabling nuanced, entity-aware deterrence (see Applicant's specification, [0003], [0009]-[0012], [0010] example of lawn zone vs. street). The Palmer/Siminoff combination does not suggest or render obvious this specific combination of features” (please see Remarks, page 17, first paragraph).
Examiner respectfully disagrees, In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Further, Palmer and Siminoff both relates to surveillance system to monitor property and try to resolve the well known issue in the art i.e., detection of security events and to enhance public safety and for the motivation Examiner relied upon the teachings of the prior art not the teachings of the pending disclosure. Therefore the combination is reasonable and proper.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7-9, 11-14, 16, and 18-21, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Palmer (US Patent 10,755,537 B1).
As per claim 1, Palmer discloses an apparatus (Palmer, Fig. 1:102:134, and Fig. 2:200) comprising:
one or more sensor devices, including one or more image capture devices to capture image data of an environment (Palmer, Column 13, lines 47-54, discloses Audio/Video (A/V) recording and communication devices (referred to herein as A/V devices) 124, that may be located on an exterior of the structure 104 or elsewhere on the premises 102. The one or more A/V devices 124 may be in the form of, for example, a stand-alone A/V device 124a, a floodlight 124b, a doorbell, and/or a security camera); and
one or more processors (Palmer, Fig. 3:310) configured to:
detect, using the one or more sensor devices, the presence of an entity within a first zone of the environment (Palmer, Column 15, lines 30-33, discloses the security system may include and/or utilize A/V devices 124 and/or automation devices 116 for detecting a security event, e.g., a detected presence of an entity (intruder) on the premises);
determine that the entity corresponds to one or more criteria (Palmer, Column 15, lines 30-33, discloses detected presence of an entity (intruder) on the premises);
determine a first threshold duration based at least in part on the one or more criteria that correspond to the entity (Palmer, Fig. 8:B802, and Column 48, lines 59-67, and Column 49, lines 1-3, discloses at block B802 “determines that a security event is occurring. For example, the hub device 202 (and/or the backend server 224) may receive image data 406 from an A/V device 210, motion data 412 from the A/V device 210, and/or sensor data 204 from a sensor 204 and/or other electronic device (e.g., lighting element 232). The image data 406, the motion data 412, and/or the sensor data 512 may indicate the presence of one or more objects on or near a premises (e.g., the premises 102). Based on the image data 406, motion data 412, and/or the sensor data 512, the hub device 202 (and/or the backend server 224) may determine that a security event is occurring” i.e., here please note occurrence of security event corresponds to first threshold duration);
determine/monitoring a duration the entity remains in the first zone after detection by the one or more sensor devices (Palmer, Column 5, lines 41-53, and Column 11, lines 17-22, discloses a range of five to fifteen seconds, the security event is still detected); and
execute a deterrence action based on the duration and the first threshold duration (Palmer, Fig. 8:B804, and Column 49, lines 4-13, discloses at block B804, selects a deterrent protocol for implementation. For example, the hub device 202 (and/or the backend server 224) may include a deterrent protocol database 420 that includes one or more deterrent protocols 140. Each deterrent protocol 140 includes multiple actions that may be instigated by the hub device 202 (and/or the backend server 224) in response to a security event. For example, the actions may include activating one or more light emitters 232, A/V device(s) 210, and/or interior lights 120 to a first lighting state).
As per claim 3, Palmer further discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: detect, using the one or more sensor devices, the presence of one or more additional entities within the first zone (Palmer, Column 9, lines 46-53, and Column 15, lines 15-18, discloses The A/V devices communicate with the hub device to provide information relating to potential detections indicative of the presence of a person or persons. Such potential detections may be referred to as detected security events. For example, a motion sensor on the A/V device may detect motion indicating the presence of a person or persons. Alternatively, or additionally, the camera may detect the presence of one or more persons);
determine that the one or more additional entities correspond to one or more criteria (Palmer, Column 15, lines 30-38, and Column 20, lines 5-10, discloses one or more persons intrusion and/or intruders);
determine a duration that the one or more additional entities have remained in the first zone after detection by the one or more sensor devices (Palmer, Column 9, lines 46-67 and Column 40, lines 61-67, discloses a range of five to fifteen seconds, the security event is still detected),
wherein the first threshold duration is also determined based on the detected one or more additional entities and the one or more criteria that correspond to the one or more additional entities (Palmer, Column 9, lines 46-67, Column 48, lines 59-67, and Column 49, lines 1-3, discloses a range of five to fifteen seconds, the security event is still detected i.e., the intruders still on the premises), and
wherein the deterrence action is also based on the duration that the one or more additional entities have remained in the first zone (Palmer, Column 5, lines 41-53, Column 9, lines 46-67, Column 11, lines 17-22, and Column 49, lines 4-13, discloses selects a deterrent protocol for implementation. For example, the hub device 202 (and/or the backend server 224) may include a deterrent protocol database 420 that includes one or more deterrent protocols 140. Each deterrent protocol 140 includes multiple actions that may be instigated by the hub device 202 (and/or the backend server 224) in response to a security event).
As per claim 7, Palmer further discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the determined one or more criteria that correspond to the entity include a behavior of the entity (Palmer, Column 37, lines 45-55, discloses Biometric identifiers can be physiological characteristics and/or behavioral characteristics).
As per claim 8, Palmer further discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the determined one or more criteria that correspond to the entity include a distance between the entity and a location (Palmer, Column 34, lines 24-25, discloses a distance of the entity from the A/V device 210).
As per claim 9, Palmer further discloses the apparatus of claim 8, wherein the location is the location of one or more of the one or more sensor devices (Palmer, Column 34, lines 23-25, discloses a distance of the entity from the A/V device 210).
As per claim 11, Palmer further discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more criteria that correspond to the entity include a distance between the entity and an object (Palmer, Column 34, lines 24-25, discloses a distance of the entity from the A/V device 210).
As per claim 12, Palmer further discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more criteria that correspond to the entity include a direction of travel of the entity (Palmer, Column 34, lines 22-24, discloses a direction of movement of the entity).
As per claim 13, Palmer further discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the determined one or more criteria that correspond to the entity include a velocity of the entity (Palmer, Fig. 3:326, motion sensor).
As per claim 14, please see the analysis of claim 1.
As per claim 16, please see the analysis of claim 3.
As per claim 18, please see the analysis of claim 7.
As per claim 19, please see the analysis of claim 8.
As per claim 20, please see the analysis of claim 12.
As per claim 21, please see the analysis of claim 13.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2, 10, and 15, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palmer (US Patent 10,755,537 B1) and further in view of Siminoff (US PGPUB 2018/0114421 A1).
As per claim 2, Palmer further discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: Palmer does not explicitly disclose identify a default duration based at least in part on the first zone,
wherein the first threshold duration is less/shorter than the identified default duration.
Siminoff discloses identify a default duration based at least in part on the first zone (Siminoff, paragraph 131, discloses “set threshold length of time”),
wherein the first threshold duration is less/shorter than the identified default duration (Siminoff, paragraph 131, discloses if a conditional setting of the at least one intrusion zone comprises a length of time that a person/object remains within a motion zone, then the process may compare a length of time that a person/object remains within a motion zone to a set threshold time to determine whether the detected length of time is above or below the set threshold length of time).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Palmer teachings by implementing a conditional settings to the security system, as taught by Siminoff.
The motivation would be to provide an improved security system to reduce crime and enhance public safety (paragraph 2), as taught by Siminoff.
As per claim 10, Palmer further discloses the apparatus of claim 8, wherein the Palmer does not explicitly disclose location is within a second zone.
Siminoff discloses location is within a second zone (Siminoff, paragraphs 127 and 131, discloses a location where the motion was detected (e.g. if the detected motion was inside the home (or in the front yard, or the back yard, or along the side of the home, etc.), then it may be indicative of a threat)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Palmer teachings by monitoring multiple locations, as taught by Siminoff.
The motivation would be to provide an improved security system to reduce crime and enhance public safety (paragraph 2), as taught by Siminoff.
As per claim 15, please see the analysis of claim 2.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 and 17, objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SYED Z HAIDER whose telephone number is (571)270-5169. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY-FRIDAY 9-5:30 EST.
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, SAM K Ahn can be reached at 571-272-3044. 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.
/SYED HAIDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633
Prosecution Insights