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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2-21 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,990,992 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the issued patent is directly related to a need for a monitoring system sensor unit that can reliably communicate with a monitoring system during a sensor jamming attack (col. 1 lines 44-46).
Application No. 18/637,119
U.S. Patent No. 11,990,992 B2
2. (New) A computer-implemented method, comprising: determining, for a Wi-Fi network that enables communication between a first device and a second device at a property, that a Wi-Fi jamming event is likely preventing transmission of at least some of data between the first device and the second device across the Wi-Fi network at the property; and in response to determining that the Wi-Fi jamming event is likely preventing the transmission of the at least some of the data between the first device and the second device across the Wi-Fi network, enabling, for the communication between the first device and the second device, a second communication mode that does not use the Wi-Fi network for transmission of the data between the first device and the second device at the property.
20. A computer-implemented method, comprising: determining, by a computing device, to communicate data to a device at a property; determining, by the computing device, that a jamming event is occurring at the property for a first communication mode; and in response to determining that the jamming event is occurring at the property for the first communication mode, using a second communication mode that is different from the first communication mode to communicate, from the computing device, the data to the device at the property.
11. (New) A system comprising one or more computers and one or more storage devices on which are stored instructions that are operable, when executed by the one or more computers, to cause the one or more computers to perform operations comprising: determining, for a Wi-Fi network that enables communication between a first device and a second device at a property, that a Wi-Fi jamming event is likely preventing transmission of at least some of data between the first device and the second device across the Wi-Fi network at the property; and in response to determining that the Wi-Fi jamming event is likely preventing the transmission of the at least some of the data between the first device and the second device across the Wi-Fi network, enabling, for the communication between the first device and the second device, a second communication mode that does not use the Wi-Fi network for transmission of the data between the first device and the second device at the property.
1. A computing device comprising one or more processors and one or more storage media on which are stored instructions that are operable, when executed by the one or more processors, to cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: determining to communicate data to a device at a property; determining that a jamming event is occurring at the property for a first communication mode; and in response to determining that the jamming event is occurring at the property for the first communication mode, using a second communication mode that is different from the first communication mode to communicate the data to the device at the property.
20. (New) At least one non-transitory computer-readable storage device storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: determining, for a Wi-Fi network that enables communication between a first device and a second device at a property, that a Wi-Fi jamming event is likely preventing transmission of at least some of data between the first device and the second device across the Wi-Fi network at the property; and in response to determining that the Wi-Fi jamming event is likely preventing the transmission of the at least some of the data between the first device and the second device across the Wi-Fi network, enabling, for the communication between the first device and the second device, a second communication mode that does not use the Wi-Fi network for transmission of the data between the first device and the second device at the property.
20. A computer-implemented method, comprising: determining, by a computing device, to communicate data to a device at a property; determining, by the computing device, that a jamming event is occurring at the property for a first communication mode; and in response to determining that the jamming event is occurring at the property for the first communication mode, using a second communication mode that is different from the first communication mode to communicate, from the computing device, the data to the device at the property.
Claim 3 of current application corresponds to Claim 2 of issued patent.
Claim 4 of current application corresponds to Claim 3 of issued patent.
Claim 5 of current application corresponds to Claim 4 of issued patent.
Claim 6 of current application corresponds to (col. 19 lines 41-44) of issued patent.
Claim 7 of current application corresponds to Claim 8 of issued patent.
Claim 8 of current application corresponds to Claim 10 of issued patent.
Claim 9 of current application corresponds to Claim 11 of issued patent.
Claim 10 of current application corresponds to Claim 16 of issued patent.
Claim 12 of current application corresponds to Claim 2 of issued patent.
Claim 13 of current application corresponds to Claim 3 of issued patent.
Claim 14 of current application corresponds to Claim 4 of issued patent.
Claim 15 of current application corresponds to (col. 19 lines 41-44) of issued patent.
Claim 16 of current application corresponds to Claim 8 of issued patent.
Claim 17 of current application corresponds to Claim 10 of issued patent.
Claim 18 of current application corresponds to Claim 11 of issued patent.
Claim 19 of current application corresponds to Claim 16 of issued patent.
Claim 21 of current application corresponds to Claim 2 of issued patent.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 2-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Krein et al., Pub. No.: US2018/0365969 A1.
Regarding claim 2, Krein discloses A computer-implemented method, comprising: determining, for a Wi-Fi network that enables communication between a first device and a second device at a property, that a Wi-Fi jamming event is likely preventing transmission of at least some of data between the first device and the second device across the Wi-Fi network at the property (par. 0028; an alarm condition triggered by one or more Sensor(s) 111 (with messages potentially relayed by Base Unit 110) may be observed by Monitoring Service(s) 130. Monitoring Service(s) 130 can then take appropriate/responsive actions, for example alerting authorities, contacting the user of the system to confirm the threat, etc.); and in response to determining that the Wi-Fi jamming event is likely preventing the transmission of the at least some of the data between the first device and the second device across the Wi-Fi network, enabling, for the communication between the first device and the second device, a second communication mode that does not use the Wi-Fi network for transmission of the data between the first device and the second device at the property (Fig. 5, par. 0090-0099; Base Unit 110, Sensors 111 with notification to the Base unit 110 runs one or more measurement and evaluation techniques to determine if the selected network or connection is available; step 540, the Base Unit 110 selects the next available Data Network 122 or Telemetry network or connections on a list that is not jammed; for example, if the Wi-Fi Data Network 122 is jammed, the Base Unit selects a second such as a LTE connection which is not jammed for communication to the outside world.).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Krein discloses all the limitations in claims 2 and 11. Krein also discloses wherein the data comprises sensor data generated by a sensor at the property (par. 0021; Sensors 111 including motion, door, pressure, temperature, heat, smoke/ CO, and glass break sensors monitor conditions in and around Premises 105 as motion, door, pressure, temperature, heat, smoke/ CO, glass break sensors.).
Regarding claims 4, 13 and 21, Krein discloses all the limitations in claims 2, 11 and 20. Krein also discloses comprising: selecting, from a plurality of communication modes, the second communication mode for transmission of the data between the first device and the second device at the property in response to determining that no jamming event is likely preventing the transmission of the at least some of the data between the first device and the second device using the second communication mode (par. 0093-0097; at step 540 the next network or connection is selected at step 545 if more networks or connections are available.).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Krein discloses all the limitations in claims 2 and 11. Krein also discloses wherein the first device and the second device at the property are two of a plurality of devices at the property, the method comprising: transmitting, to one of the plurality of devices at the property that uses the Wi-Fi network, instructions to communicate using the second communication mode instead of the Wi-Fi network (par. 0090-0097; the Base Unit and Sensor 111 run one or more measurement and evaluation techniques to determine if the selected network, “the first communication mode” or connection is available; after notification or self-jammed or unjammed determination, the Base Unit selects or assigns the same or next network for communication.).
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Krein discloses all the limitations in claims 2 and 11. Krein also discloses wherein the first device and the second device at the property are two of a plurality of devices at the property, the method comprising: transmitting, to one of the plurality of devices at the property that uses the Wi-Fi network, data indicating that the Wi-Fi network is unavailable (par. 0090-0097).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Krein discloses all the limitations in claims 2 and 11. Krein also discloses wherein the second communication mode comprises wired communication (par. 0026-0027; Data Networks 122 including a wireless WiFi and/ or a wired Ethernet network for communication with one another device within the Premises 105 as well as access to the Internet 121.).
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Krein discloses all the limitations in claims 2 and 11. Krein also discloses wherein: the Wi-Fi network uses radio frequency communications within a first frequency range, and the second communication mode comprises a communication mode that does not use the Wi-Fi network and uses radio frequency communications within a second frequency range that is different from the first frequency range (par. 0099; another connection including an LTE which is not jammed.).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Krein discloses all the limitations in claims 2 and 11. Krein also discloses comprising: after transmitting at least some of the data between the first device and the second device at the property using the second communication mode, determining that the Wi-Fi jamming event is likely no longer occurring for the Wi-Fi network; and in response to determining that the Wi-Fi jamming event is likely no longer occurring, enabling transmission of additional data between the first device and the second device at the property using the Wi-Fi network (par. 0108-0114; other devices in or about Premises 105 are optionally notified of the jamming condition which has now cleared.).
Regarding claims 10 and 19, Krein discloses all the limitations in claims 2 and 11. Krein also discloses comprising: in response to determining that the Wi-Fi jamming event is likely preventing the transmission of the at least some of the data between the first device and the second device across the Wi-Fi network, activating an alarm at the property (par. 0104-0106; local alerts are optionally generate by Base Unit 110 that includes generating a sound which may be a simple notification sound or a full siren like alarm sound.).
Regarding claim 11, Krein discloses A system comprising one or more computers and one or more storage devices on which are stored instructions that are operable, when executed by the one or more computers, to cause the one or more computers to perform operations (Fig. 1, par. 0020-0021; Base Unit 110 operating as a primary device connected to a Telemetry Network 123 (i.e. Bluetooth) monitors door or other Sensors 111 with connections to the outside word to provide security services for a small office and/or a home with connections to the outside world) comprising: determining, for a Wi-Fi network that enables communication between a first device and a second device at a property, that a Wi-Fi jamming event is likely preventing transmission of at least some of data between the first device and the second device across the Wi-Fi network at the property (par. 0028; an alarm condition triggered by one or more Sensor(s) 111 (with messages potentially relayed by Base Unit 110) may be observed by Monitoring Service(s) 130. Monitoring Service(s) 130 can then take appropriate/responsive actions, for example alerting authorities, contacting the user of the system to confirm the threat, etc.); and in response to determining that the Wi-Fi jamming event is likely preventing the transmission of the at least some of the data between the first device and the second device across the Wi-Fi network, enabling, for the communication between the first device and the second device, a second communication mode that does not use the Wi-Fi network for transmission of the data between the first device and the second device at the property (Fig. 5, par. 0090-0099; Base Unit 110, Sensors 111 with notification to the Base unit 110 runs one or more measurement and evaluation techniques to determine if the selected network or connection is available; step 540, the Base Unit 110 selects the next available Data Network 122 or Telemetry network or connections on a list that is not jammed; for example, if the Wi-Fi Data Network 122 is jammed, the Base Unit selects a second such as a LTE connection which is not jammed for communication to the outside world.).
Regarding claim 20, Krein discloses At least one non-transitory computer-readable storage device storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors (par. 0162; Some of the above-described functions may be composed of instructions that are stored on storage media (e.g., computer-readable medium). The instructions may be retrieved and executed by the processor. Some examples of storage media are memory devices, tapes, disks, and the like.), causes the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: determining, for a Wi-Fi network that enables communication between a first device and a second device at a property, that a Wi-Fi jamming event is likely preventing transmission of at least some of data between the first device and the second device across the Wi-Fi network at the property (par. 0028; an alarm condition triggered by one or more Sensor(s) 111 (with messages potentially relayed by Base Unit 110) may be observed by Monitoring Service(s) 130. Monitoring Service(s) 130 can then take appropriate/responsive actions, for example alerting authorities, contacting the user of the system to confirm the threat, etc.); and in response to determining that the Wi-Fi jamming event is likely preventing the transmission of the at least some of the data between the first device and the second device across the Wi-Fi network, enabling, for the communication between the first device and the second device, a second communication mode that does not use the Wi-Fi network for transmission of the data between the first device and the second device at the property (Fig. 5, par. 0090-0099; Base Unit 110, Sensors 111 with notification to the Base unit 110 runs one or more measurement and evaluation techniques to determine if the selected network or connection is available; step 540, the Base Unit 110 selects the next available Data Network 122 or Telemetry network or connections on a list that is not jammed; for example, if the Wi-Fi Data Network 122 is jammed, the Base Unit selects a second such as a LTE connection which is not jammed for communication to the outside world.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AYODEJI O AYOTUNDE whose telephone number is (571)270-7983. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:00am-3:30pm.
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, Yuwen Pan can be reached at 571-272-7855. 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.
/AYODEJI O AYOTUNDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2649