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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of Group I: claims 1-15 in the reply filed on 01/20/2026 is acknowledged.
Applicant’s traversal is based on the reasons that Group I and Group II are capable of use together, they overlap in scope (share a common CPC code), and that there would be no serious burden to search or examine Group I and Group II together. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s argument. While Group I (claims 1-15) and Group II (claims 16-20) share a common CPC classification and relate to power monitoring in security devices, they recite distinct inventive concepts. Claims 1-15 rely on querying other devices for their power source to detect tampering, whereas claims 16-20 rely on detecting the presence or absence of devices within wireless range to determine that that the first device is not compromised. This represents a different technical approach and operational mechanism, justifying restriction despite overlapping classification or similar search effort. Also, just because some keywords are the same does not mean the systems work the same way. Their underlying mechanisms and decision processes are different, which supports keeping the restriction. Examination of claims 16-20 would require separate consideration beyond that necessary for elected claims 1-15.
Accordingly, the non-elected invention (claims 16-20) has been properly withdrawn from further consideration.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 03/29/2024 are acknowledged and are acceptable.
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 of this title, 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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fadell et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2015/0097958; hereinafter as “Fadell”) in view of Ben Yochanan (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0377015).
As per claim 1, Fadell teaches a method (e.g., para. [0007] & [0058]: a system and process for detecting tampering of a security keypad device) comprising:
sending, by a first device, based on a change in a power source providing power to the first device, a first query to a second device (see e.g., para. [0057] & [0059]-[0060]: detecting loss of primary power source and responding accordingly; para. [0046]-[0047]: the security keypad device communicates with computer server system and other smart devices),
sending, based on the power source providing power to the second device, an indication of a tamper of the first device (e.g., para. [0058]-[0060]: tampering events are transmitted when sensors detect movement or power cord disconnection).
Fadell does not explicitly teach wherein the first query is indicative of a request for an indication of a power source providing power to the second device; and receiving, from the second device, a first response indicating the power source providing power to the second device.
However, in the same art of devices that communicate using a query (challenge) and response mechanism to verify device status and detect abnormal conditions, Ben Yochanan teaches: wherein the first query is indicative of a request for an indication of a power source providing power to the second device (e.g., para. [0025]-[0027]: the Challenge Generator/Transmitter 241 sends a query message or signal to the Responding Unit 251); and
receiving, from the second device, a first response indicating the power source providing power to the second device (e.g., para. [0027]-[0029], [0035]-[0036] & [0038]: the responding unit may compute the required function and send back the computed response so that the requesting device (i.e., Challenge Generator/Transmitter 241) can determine whether an abnormal condition or tampering has occurred).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Fadell to include the query-response communication mechanism of Ben Yochanan so that, upon detecting a change in the power source of the keypad device, the device could query another device and receive a response indicating its status. Doing so would allow the system to verify whether the detected power loss corresponds to a power outage or indicates tampering of the device, thereby improving reliability and reducing false tamper alerts.
As per claim 2, claim 1 is incorporated and Fadell further teaches: wherein the first device is configured with primary power and secondary power, and configured to operate under the primary power or the secondary power (e.g., para. [0055]: the security keypad device includes power cord and battery compartment providing operating power for the security keypad device), wherein the primary power is provided by a power source external to the first device (para. [0055]: power cord 424 connected to a primary power source such as the main electric power line of the house (external)) and the secondary power is provided by a power source internal to the first device (para. [0055]: battery compartment 420 holding backup/secondary power source such as rechargeable batteries (internal)).
As per claim 3, claim 1 is incorporated and Fadell further teaches: wherein the second device is configured with primary power and secondary power, and configured to operate under the primary power or the secondary power, wherein the primary power is provided by a power source external to the second device and the secondary power is provided by a power source internal to the second device (e.g., para. [0055]: the security keypad device includes power cord and battery compartment providing operating power for the security keypad device; para. [0047]: describes other smart devices in the home network communicating with the keypad device; Although power configuration is not explicitly disclosed for other devices, backup battery power for security devices was well-known. A person skill in the art would configure the second device with similar primary/backup power architecture as the keypad device).
As per claim 4, claim 1 is incorporated and Fadell in view of Ben Yochanan teaches: determining, based on the indication that the power source providing power to the second device is a primary power source, that the power source of the first device is compromised (see Fadell, e.g., para. [0061]: the security keypad distinguishes power outage affecting area vs. local power loss; Ben Yochanan, para. [0025]-[0029] & [0035]-[0038]: query-response communication between devices; the device determines abnormal condition based on response; thus, if the other device still has primary power, the first device can infer local compromise); and
wherein sending the indication of the tamper of the first device comprises sending, based on determining that the power source of the first device is compromised, the indication of the tamper of the first device (see Fadell, e.g., para. [0060]: if it is detected that the primary power source is no longer supplying power, the security keypad device transmits a tampering event).
As per claim 5, claim 4 is incorporated and Fadell further teaches: wherein the primary power source comprises one or more of an alternating current-direct current (AC-DC) power supply, an AC power source, a DC power source, or a solar power panel (para. [0055]: primary power from house electric power line (AC supply)).
As per claim 6, claim 1 is incorporated and Fadell in view of Ben Yochanan teaches: determining, based on the indication that the power source providing power to the second device is a secondary power source, that the power source of the first device is not compromised (see Fadell, e.g., para. [0061]: the security keypad distinguishes power outage affecting area vs. local power loss; Ben Yochanan, para. [0025]-[0029] & [0035]-[0038]: response information used to determine system condition; thus, if multiple devices are on battery, the system may infer general outage).
As per claim 7, claim 6 is incorporated and Fadell in view of Ben Yochanan teaches: wherein the secondary power source comprises one or more of a lithium metal battery, a lithium-ion battery, a lithium-polymer battery, an alkaline battery, a nickel-metal hydride battery, or an integrated photovoltaic (see Fadell, e.g., para. [0055]: battery compartment with rechargeable batteries; specific battery types are well-known equivalents).
As per claim 8, claim 1 is incorporated and Fadell further teaches: wherein the first device and the second device are associated with a security network (see e.g., para. [0005]-[0007]: system for detecting tampering of security keypad device, which is an integral component of home security system; para. [0047] & [0053]: keypad communicates with other smart devices in the home network).
As per claim 9, claim 8 is incorporated and Fadell further teaches: wherein one or more of the first device or the second device comprises a control panel, a sensor, a security camera, a security alarm, a smart lock, or a network device for the security network (see e.g., para. [0005]-[0007], [0046]-[0047], [0053]-[0054] & [0059]).
Claims 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fadell in view of Ben Yochanan, and further in view of Meynardi et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0363574; hereinafter as “Meynardi”).
As per claim 10, Fadell teaches a method (e.g., para. [0007] & [0058]: a system and process for detecting tampering of a security keypad device) comprising:
sending, by a first device and to a second device, based on a change in a power source providing power to the first device, a first query (see e.g., para. [0057] & [0059]-[0060]: detecting loss of primary power source and responding accordingly; and para. [0046]-[0047]: the security keypad device communicates with computer server system and other smart devices), and
sending, based on the power source providing power to the second device, a notification (e.g., para. [0055] & [0058]-[0060]: tampering events are transmitted when sensors detect movement or power cord disconnection).
Fadell does not explicitly teach wherein the first query is indicative of a request for an indication of a power source providing power to the second device; and receiving, from the second device, a first response indicating that the power source providing power to the second device is a secondary power source for the second device.
However, in the same art of devices that communicate using a query (challenge) and response mechanism to verify device status and detect abnormal conditions, Ben Yochanan teaches: wherein the first query is indicative of a request for an indication of a power source providing power to the second device (e.g., para. [0025]-[0027]: the Challenge Generator/Transmitter 241 sends a query message or signal to the Responding Unit 251); and
receiving, from the second device, a first response indicating that the power source providing power to the second device is a secondary power source for the second device (e.g., para. [0027]-[0029], [0035]-[0036] & [0038]: response information used to determine system condition; thus, if multiple devices are on battery, the system may infer general outage).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Fadell to include the query-response communication mechanism of Ben Yochanan so that, upon detecting a change in the power source of the keypad device, the device could query another device and receive a response indicating its status. Doing so would allow the system to verify whether the detected power loss corresponds to a power outage or indicates tampering of the device, thereby improving reliability and reducing false tamper alerts.
Fadell in view of Ben Yochanan does not explicitly teach sending, by the first device and to a third device, based on the power source providing power to the second device being the secondary power source, a second query, wherein the second query is indicative of a request for an indication of a power source providing power to the third device; receiving, from the third device, a second response indicating the power source providing power to the third device; and sending, based on the power source providing power to the third device, a notification.
However, in the same art of multi-device verification of power status, Meynardi teaches: sending, by the first device and to a third device, based on the power source providing power to the second device being the secondary power source, a second query, wherein the second query is indicative of a request for an indication of a power source providing power to the third device; receiving, from the third device, a second response indicating the power source providing power to the third device; and sending, based on the power source providing power to the third device, a notification (see e.g., claim 19; para. [0018]-[0024] & [0057]-[0060]: multiple network devices detecting loss of primary power; the devices sending alerts indicating power status; and a system evaluating multiple device responses to determine outage conditions and sending notifications based on the combined device information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Fadell in view of Ben Yochanan to provide querying a third device to verify system status when the second device is operating on the secondary power, and generating a notification based on the third device’s response, as taught by Meynardi. Doing so would allow extending the known query-response mechanism to multiple devices in a security system in order to reliably distinguish local tampering from a general power outage.
As per claim 11, claim 10 is incorporated and Fadell further teaches: wherein the first device is configured with primary power and secondary power, and configured to operate under the primary power or the secondary power (e.g., para. [0055]: the security keypad device includes power cord and battery compartment providing operating power for the security keypad device), wherein the primary power is provided by a power source external to the first device (para. [0055]: power cord 424 connected to a primary power source such as the main electric power line of the house (external)) and the secondary power is provided by a power source internal to the first device (para. [0055]: battery compartment 420 holding backup/secondary power source such as rechargeable batteries (internal)).
As per claim 12, claim 10 is incorporated and Fadell in view of Ben Yochanan and Meynardi teaches: wherein the second device is configured with primary power and secondary power, and configured to operate under the primary power or the secondary power, wherein the primary power is provided by a power source external to the second device and the secondary power is provided by a power source internal to the second device (see Fadell, e.g., para. [0055]: the security keypad device includes power cord and battery compartment providing operating power for the security keypad device; para. [0047]: describes other smart devices in the home network communicating with the keypad device; A person skill in the art would configure the second device with similar primary/secondary power as the keypad device; also see Meynardi, e.g., para. [0018]-[0024] & [0057]: multi-device system evaluates device power sources).
As per claim 13, claim 10 is incorporated and Fadell in view of Ben Yochanan and Meynardi teaches: wherein the third device is configured with primary power and secondary power, and configured to operate under the primary power or the secondary power, wherein the primary power is provided by a power source external to the third device and the secondary power is provided by a power source internal to the third device (see Fadell, e.g., para. [0055]: the security keypad device includes power cord and battery compartment providing operating power for the security keypad device; para. [0047]: describes other smart devices in the home network communicating with the keypad device; A person skill in the art would configure the third device with similar primary/secondary power as the keypad device; also see Meynardi, e.g., para. [0018]-[0024] & [0057]: multi-device system evaluates device power sources).
As per claim 14, claim 10 is incorporated and Fadell in view of Ben Yochanan and Meynardi teaches: determining, based on the indication that the power source providing power to the third device is a primary power source, that the power source of the first device is compromised (see Fadell, e.g., para. [0061]: the security keypad distinguishes power outage affecting area vs. local power loss; Ben Yochanan, para. [0025]-[0029] & [0035]-[0038]: query-response communication between devices; the device determines abnormal condition based on response; thus, if the other device still has primary power, the first device can infer local compromise; Meynardi, e.g., para. [0018]-[0024] & [0057]: system evaluates multiple devices’ power status to infer outage or device compromise); and
wherein sending the notification comprises sending, based on determining the power source of the first device is compromised, the notification indicating that the first device is compromised (see Fadell, e.g., para. [0060]: if it is detected that the primary power source is no longer supplying power, the security keypad device transmits a tampering event; Meynardi, e.g., claim 19; para. [0018] & [0057]: the system evaluating multiple device responses to determine outage conditions and sending notifications based on the combined device information).
As per claim 15, claim 10 is incorporated and Fadell in view of Ben Yochanan and Meynardi teaches: wherein the first device, the second device, and the third device are associated with a security network (see Fadell, e.g., para. [0005]-[0007]: system for detecting tampering of security keypad device, which is an integral component of home security system; para. [0047] & [0053]: keypad communicates with other smart devices in the home network; Meynardi, e.g., para. [0014]-[0018]: multiple devices interconnected via a network 160).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to PTO-892, Notice of References Cited for a listing of analogous art.
Swierk et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0232031) teaches IOT devices monitoring power anomalies and coordinating with other devices in the system to manage abnormal power situations and system behavior.
Saldin et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0100069) teaches gateway devices with backup power and communications system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADNAN AZIZ whose telephone number is (571) 270-7536, (Fax: 571-270-8536). The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (9am - 6pm Eastern Time).
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, QUAN-ZHEN WANG can be reached at 571-272-3114. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ADNAN AZIZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685 adnan.aziz@uspto.gov