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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/18/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Claims 1-20 are pending. Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been respectfully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. THIS ACTION IS MADE NON-FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/18/2026 has been considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Form PTO-1449 is signed and attached hereto.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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 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 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.
4. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
5. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
6. Claims 12-16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lamb (US 20210125485 A1) (hereinafter Lamb) in view of Helgeson (US 20060152335 A1) (hereinafter Helgeson) (Applicant’s submitted reference in IDS).
Regarding claim 12, Lamb discloses a method for operating a security system controller (Fig. 1, 4, para 26, controller 116 performs monitoring of alarms 104, 106, and security devices (from sensors) that are part of security system), the method comprising:
receiving security sensor alarms from each of a plurality of security sensors in a region of a facility (para 26, controller 116 receiving alarm condition being sensed by one or more alarms/sensors in the security system),
wherein each security sensor alarm is received when an alarm condition is detected by a corresponding one of the plurality of security sensors (para 57, alarm condition performed by one or more sensors, or determined by controller 116 as it receives data from one or more sensors in the security system);
confirming one or more of the received security sensor alarms when the corresponding security sensor again detects the alarm condition in the region of the facility within a predetermined period of time, resulting in one or more confirmed alarm conditions (para 09, sensor detecting alarm in closed position, para 26, controller 116 receives alarms and determines, based on data, whether alarm condition occurred when alarm condition detected (i.e., confirming alarm detection));
the security system controller issuing an alarm for each of the one or more confirmed alarm conditions (para 46, alarm message comprises notification to controller 116 that alarm condition detected by sensor 404 (i.e, issue alarm condition from detection));
scheduling for transmission a supervisory signal from each of the plurality of security sensors during each of a plurality of sequential time intervals (para 47, alarm transmits supervisory message at predetermined time intervals, and transmit message at scheduled time intervals, controller 116 declare that alarm condition has occurred, para 25, alarms transmit a response to controller 116 indicating a status),
wherein for each sequential time interval, the transmission of the supervisory signals from each of the plurality of security sensors are spaced from one another in time along the corresponding sequential time interval (para 62, supervisory messages received and transmit in security system at predetermined time intervals, monitoring predetermined alarm conditions at regular intervals (i.e., sequential time interval based on predetermined or regular intervals)).
Lamb specifically fails to disclose repeatedly receiving supervisory signals from each of the plurality of security sensors.
In analogous art, Helgeson discloses system repeatedly receiving supervisory signals from each of the plurality of security sensors (Abstract, The bi-directional capability allows coordinated scheduling which aids in allowing the remote units to transmit data at periodic time interval, para 08, transmit message at regular periodic intervals and periodic transmissions can be scheduled, para 35, broadcast alarms repeatedly, and for long time periods, para 051, when an alarm event is received by the master unit, message transmitted and master unit, a lookup table is used to determine confirmation requested, and for what number of repetitions (i.e. supervisory signals)).
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 teaching of disarm alarm in communication with controller for monitoring signals provided by a sensor associated with alarm and use sensor for detecting when a barrier monitored by the alarm is in a closed position disclosed by Lamb to use control device for sending command signal to the system through the sensor to alter existing security supervisory control system as taught by Helgeson to use bi-directional capability which allows coordinated scheduling and aids in allowing to transmit data only at periodic time intervals to extend battery life to improve monitoring [Helgeson, Abstract].
Regarding claim 13, Lamb discloses the method of claim 12, wherein the transmission of the supervisory signals from each of the plurality of security sensors are distributed randomly in time along the corresponding sequential time interval (para 62, supervisory messages received and transmit in security system at predetermined time intervals, para 60, providing status of alarms distributed throughout security system (i.e., from sensors are distributed in area)).
Regarding claim 14, Lamb discloses the method of claim 12, wherein the transmission of the supervisory signals from each of the plurality of security sensors are distributed in a predetermined sequence along the corresponding sequential time interval (para 47, alarm transmits supervisory message at predetermined time intervals, para 57, transmits message to controller 116 upon detection of status change).
Regarding claim 15, Lamb discloses the method of claim 12, comprising: wherein in response to a supervisory signal not being received from a particular one of the plurality of security sensors, the security system controller issuing a tamper alarm associated with the particular one of the plurality of security sensors (para 62, Transmitting signal at regular intervals that alarm has not been altered, or tampered, notify remote monitoring station 124 that an alarm condition has occurred).
Regarding claim 16, Lamb discloses the method of claim 12, wherein the security system controller has an armed state and a disarmed state, and when the security system controller is in the armed state, the security system controller reduces a length of each of the sequential time intervals relative to when the security system controller is in the disarmed state (para 30, FIG. 2a convey status of alarm as being armed or disarmed, and detect and report an event, para 37, green for indicating alarm is armed, colors used to differentiate between armed and unarmed condition).
Regarding claim 19, Lamb discloses a method for operating a security system controller (Fig. 1, 4, para 26, controller 116 performs monitoring of alarms 104, 106, and security devices (from sensors) part of security system), the method comprising:
receiving security sensor alarms from each of a plurality of security sensors in a region of a facility (para 26, controller 116 receiving alarm condition being sensed by one or more alarms/ sensors in the security system),
wherein each security sensor alarm is received when an alarm condition is detected by the corresponding one of the plurality of security sensors (para 57, alarm condition performed by one or more sensors, or determined by controller 116 as it receives data from one or more sensors in the security system);
confirming one or more of the received security sensor alarms when the corresponding security sensor again detects the alarm condition in the region of the facility within a predetermined period of time, resulting in one or more confirmed alarm conditions (para 09, sensor detecting alarm in closed position, para 26, controller 116 receives data from alarms and determines, based on the data, whether a alarm condition has occurred when alarm condition is detected);
the security system controller issuing an alarm for each of the one or more confirmed alarm conditions (para 46, alarm message comprises a notification to central controller 116 that a local alarm condition has been detected by sensor 404);
wherein the security system controller has an armed state and a disarmed state, and when the security system controller is in the armed state, the security system controller increases a supervisory rate at which the supervisory signals are to be received from at least some of the plurality of security sensors relative to when the security system controller is in the disarmed state (para 62, supervisory messages received and transmit in security system at predetermined time intervals, para 07, receiving a first signal within barrier alarm to disarm, disabling, in response to receiving the indication, and re-arming, upon receipt of a second signal from sensor).
Lamb specifically fails to disclose repeatedly receiving supervisory signals from each of the plurality of security sensors.
In analogous art, Helgeson discloses system repeatedly receiving supervisory signals from each of the plurality of security sensors (Abstract, The bi-directional capability allows coordinated scheduling which aids in allowing the remote units to transmit data at periodic time interval, para 08, transmit message at regular periodic intervals and periodic transmissions can be scheduled, para 35, broadcast alarms repeatedly, and for long time periods, para 051, when an alarm event is received by the master unit, message transmitted and master unit, a lookup table is used to determine confirmation requested, and for what number of repetitions (i.e. supervisory signals)).
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 teaching of disarm alarm in communication with controller for monitoring signals provided by a sensor associated with alarm and use sensor for detecting when a barrier monitored by the alarm is in a closed position disclosed by Lamb to use control device for sending command signal to the system through the sensor to alter existing security supervisory control system as taught by Helgeson to use bi-directional capability which allows coordinated scheduling and aids in allowing to transmit data only at periodic time intervals to extend battery life to improve monitoring [Helgeson, Abstract].
7. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lamb (US 20210125485 A1) (hereinafter Lamb) in view of Helgeson (US 20060152335 A1) (hereinafter Helgeson) and further in view of Schubert (US 20230230469 A1) (hereinafter Schubert).
Regarding claim 18, Lamb and Helgeson fails to discloses the method of claim 12, comprising: using a trained artificial intelligence model to predict a future time period in which the one or more of the plurality of security sensors is predicted to produce a number of confirmed alarm conditions that is above a threshold, and when so, the security system controller reducing a length of each of the sequential time intervals during the future time period for the one or more of the plurality of security sensors that are precited to produce the number of confirmed alarm conditions that is above the threshold.
In analogous art, Schubert discloses the method of claim 12, comprising: using a trained artificial intelligence model to predict a future time period in which the one or more of the plurality of security sensors is predicted to produce a number of confirmed alarm conditions that is above a threshold (para 192, Based on historical data, if alarm rule 2100 is detected, threshold time window determined, para 236, create artificial neural network continuously learns from historical actions, continuously learning neural network of security systems to reduce occurrence of alarms, para 114, modeling to identify alarm occur in future based on events 514 and alarm rules 518), and
when so, the security system controller reducing a length of each of the sequential time intervals during the future time period for the one or more of the plurality of security sensors that are precited to produce the number of confirmed alarm conditions that is above the threshold (para 06, corrective action responsive to a determination that the number of false alarms is greater than the threshold, para 108, precited whether alarm rule 518 will trigger, para 101, predictor 520 can be configured to perform a Bayesian analysis to predict alarms occurring in the future).
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 teaching of disarm alarm in communication with controller for monitoring signals provided by a sensor associated with alarm and use sensor for detecting when a barrier monitored by alarm is in a closed position disclosed by Lamb and Helgeson to use control device for sending command signal to the system through the sensor to alter existing security supervisory control system as taught by Schubert to generate a corrective action to reduce an occurrence of the false alarm based on a result of the search and implement corrective action to update operation of the security equipment to reduce the occurrence of the false alarm [Schubert, Abstract].
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 1-11 are allowed in light of f the prior art made of record.
Claims 17 and 20 are 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.
Response to Arguments
9. Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection of claims, filed on May 18, 2026, have been fully considered but arguments are moot because the claim requires a new ground of rejection necessitated by new Prior Arts.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mirza Alam whose telephone number is (469) 295-9286. The examiner can be reached on Monday-Thursday 7:30AM-6:00PM (EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steven Lim can be reached on 571-270-1210. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for Published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MIRZA F ALAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688
Prosecution Insights