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 .
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.
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.
Claim(s) 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimny (US 20190103966 A1) in view of Noland (US 20160232774 A1).
Claim 9. Zimny teaches a method for operating a network system, comprising:
providing the network system, comprising an initialization/control device, a lockdown beacon device and a plurality of adaptors
([0071] The short-range controller 324, in this example, is configured to selectively utilize multiple short-range wireless communication standards to wirelessly communicate with access devices and device nodes of the local network of interconnected devices.
[0062] the zero-level device nodes 206a (e.g. initialization/control device)and the gateway 202 (e.g. beacon) are within their respective wireless ranges and thus in direct signal communication with each other. ... The first-level device nodes 206b (e.g. adaptors) are thus in direct signal communication with the zero-level device nodes 206a),
generating and broadcasting, from the lockdown beacon device, a lockdown control signal to the plurality of adaptors
([0063] one of the zero-level device nodes 206a may be configured as a master device node, and one of the first-level device nodes 206b may be configured as a slave device node relative to that zero-level device node... a command to provide the current status of the slave device node (e.g. slave device only operates to receives commands))
; and responsive to receiving the lockdown control signal, by each adaptor, operating the respective adaptor in a lockdown mode of operation
([0062] the zero-level device nodes 206a and the gateway 202 are within their respective wireless ranges and thus in direct signal communication with each other. (e.g. first subset)... The first-level device nodes 206b (e.g. second subset) are thus in direct signal communication with the zero-level device nodes 206a)
[0063] a command to perform some action at the slave device node (e.g., perform a lock or unlock operation at a lock-type device node).).
Zimny further teaches device nodes connected to a network and each node with an ability to respond to a command from a wake state ([0114]) but does not specifically disclose at least one target device communicatively coupled to each adaptor.
However, Noland teaches ; and at least one target device communicatively coupled to each adapter ([0174] the threat sensing device 10 is integrated into an integrated LED retrofit light bulb assembly
[0271] Like the threat sensing devices 10, the RCM 21 is a fully functioning retrofit electrical outlet that plugs into an existing in-wall electrical outlet and may include sensors).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of invention to use an adapter as taught by Noland within the system of Zimny for the purpose of retrofitting an existing electrical device to conform with modern networks.
Claim 10. Zimny and Noland teach the method in claim 9, wherein the lockdown mode of operation comprises modifying a dim level of a target device based on a predetermined lockdown level
(Zimny [0164] the techniques described herein may be employed to broadcast or multicast commands to light-type device nodes to toggle to an on state or an off state, e.g., when approaching/entering or leaving/exiting a room or structure.
Noland [0063] The countermeasure technology may be passive (e.g., locking doors, altering lighting, activating sirens, activating lighting, etc.) ).
Claim(s) 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimny and Noland and further in view of Chen (US 20150002028 A1).
Claim 11. Zimny and Noland teach the method in claim 9, and discloses the use of motion sensor but does not specifically disclose wherein the lockdown mode of operation comprises modifying a motion control timer of a target device based on a predetermined lockdown level.
However, Chen teaches modifying a motion control timer of a target device based on a predetermined lockdown level
([0032] The microcontroller turns off the light-emitting unit during the day and activates a Power-Saving (PS) mode at night by turning on the light-emitting unit to generate a first level illumination, and upon human motion detection by switching the light-emitting unit to generate a second level illumination for a short time duration. ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of invention to use a motion control timer of a target device as taught by Chen within the system of Zimny for the purpose of enhancing the system to trigger the target device to deter an intruder.
Claim 12. Th Zimny and Noland teach the e method in claim 9, wherein the lockdown mode of operation comprises disabling modification of at least one of a dim level
(Zimny [0164] the techniques described herein may be employed to broadcast or multicast commands to light-type device nodes to toggle to an on state or an off state, e.g., when approaching/entering or leaving/exiting a room or structure.
Noland [0063] The countermeasure technology may be passive (e.g., locking doors, altering lighting, activating sirens, activating lighting, etc.) ) and discloses the use of motion sensor but does not specifically disclose a motion control timer.
However, Chen teaches a motion control timer
([0032] The microcontroller turns off the light-emitting unit during the day and activates a Power-Saving (PS) mode at night by turning on the light-emitting unit to generate a first level illumination, and upon human motion detection by switching the light-emitting unit to generate a second level illumination for a short time duration. ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of invention to use a motion control timer as taught by Chen within the system of Zimny for the purpose of enhancing the system to trigger the target device to deter an intruder.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
For claim 1, the prior art of Zimny (US 20190103966 A1) was the closest prior art to teach interconnected devices using subset devices. However, the prior art is silent in regards to the memory storing the emergency test mode status and the process of a second subset of the network components not rebroadcasting.
The prior art of Noland (US 20160232774 A1) was the closest prior art to monitor and test threat sensing devices to determines sensor functionality. However, the prior art is silent in regards to the memory storing the emergency test mode status, the emergency beacon device and the process of a second subset of the network components not rebroadcasting.
Therefore, the prior art of record fails to specifically teach the limitation of “a memory storing an emergency test mode status; a central processor configured to execute instructions stored in the memory, at least one target device communicatively coupled to each adapter of the at least one adaptors, wherein an emergency control signal broadcast from the at least one emergency beacon device is received by each network component within range of the emergency beacon device via the short-range wireless communication protocol and rebroadcast by a first subset of the network components and not rebroadcast by a second subset of the network components.”
For claim 8, the prior art of record fails to specifically teach the method of “determining, by each of the plurality of adaptors, whether the respective adaptor is emergency-enabled; disabling, by a first subset of the plurality of adaptors, mesh forwarding functionality of the respective adaptor responsive to determining that the respective adaptor is not emergency-enabled; generating and broadcasting, from the emergency beacon device, an emergency control signal to the plurality of adaptors, wherein the emergency control signal is not rebroadcast by the first subset of adaptors; responsive to receiving the emergency control signal, by each emergency- enabled adaptor, operating the respective emergency enabled adaptor in an emergency mode of operation.”
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance”.
Response to Arguments
For claims 1-8, Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-8, filed 16 March 2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn. Claims 1-8 are allowable subject matter.
For claims 9-12, Applicant's arguments filed 16 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
For claim 9, Applicant states the prior art fails to specifically teach "providing the network system, comprising an initialization/control device, a lockdown beacon device and a plurality of adaptors, and at least one target device communicatively coupled to each adaptor" or "generating and broadcasting, from the lockdown beacon device, a lockdown control signal to the plurality of adaptors.".
However, the Examiner disagrees. In the broadest interpretation allowed (MPEP 2111.01), the prior art of Zimny teaches providing the network system, comprising an initialization/control device, a lockdown beacon device and a plurality of adaptors, and at least one target device communicatively coupled to each adaptor, and generating and broadcasting, from the lockdown beacon device, a lockdown control signal to the plurality of adaptors. In light of Applicant’s specification, the initialization/control device, beacon device and adaptors are defined as generic network components related to the field of emergency lock down devices and a mesh network. Without incorporating the specification into the claims (MPEP 21111.01 Subheading II.), the prior art of Zimny in combination with Nolan teaches Applicant’s broadly claimed invention.
Moreover, Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Furthermore, Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Therefore, the prior art of Zimny in view of Noland are obvious over the claimed invention of claim 9.
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 RUFUS C POINT whose telephone number is (571)270-7510. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm.
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, Davetta Goins can be reached at 571-272-2957. 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.
/RUFUS C POINT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights