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, see pages 5-7, of REMARKS, filed 8/13/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-5 and 13-15 under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being
unpatentable over Dokey (US 2015/082428) in view of Sivaraman (WO 2020/118377) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1-2, 4-6 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are:
In claim 1, it is not clear as to what is “obtaining expected network behaviour …the first device”
It is not clear as to what is “receiving a message from the first device over the network”
It is not clear as to what is “determining whether …the first parameter”, and “generating an alert …the expected behaviour”.
Claim 15, it is not clear as to what is “obtaining expected network behaviour …the first camera”
Claim 15, It is not clear as to what is “receiving a message from the first camera over the network”
Claim 15, It is not clear as to what is “determining whether …the first parameter”, and “generating an alert …the expected behaviour”.
Claim 1-2, 4-6 and 13-15 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 “a predetermined keep-alive frequency”, claims 1, 14 and 15, is indefinite. Is “a predetermined keep-alive frequency” ---the frequency (how often) of receiving a keep-alive signal--- or ---the time periods for receiving a keep-alive signal--?
Regarding the “second parameter”, claims 1, 14 and 15, the claims do not clearly define the “second parameter”. It is a question as to what is the “second parameter”?
Since it is not clear as what is the “second parameter”, it is a question as to how to ---determine whether the current behaviour of the first device on the network is within a predetermined boundary from the expected behaviour by comparing the second parameter to the first parameter---?
Further, “a predetermined boundary” claims 1 and 14, is indefinite.
Regarding claim 6, “the same class of device as the first device” has no clear antecedent basis.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 4-6 and 13-15 allowed over the prior art.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GLENTON B BURGESS whose telephone number is (571)272-3949. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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.
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.
/GLENTON B BURGESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2454
Prosecution Insights